You are here

Inshore Support Limited - 108 Barnfield Avenue Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 April 2014
Date of Publication: 8 May 2014

Overview

Inspection carried out on 10 April 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

We visited the service in response to some concerns that had been raised with us. During our inspection we looked to see whether we could answer five key questions; Is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?

At the time of our visit there were four people living at 108 Barnfield Avenue. People who used the service had limited verbal communication skills but were happy to be introduced to us. We observed people moving freely around the home, taking part in activities and making choices about how they wanted to spend their time.

We spoke with the deputy manager as the registered manager was not present during our visit. We later spoke with the registered manager. We spoke with seven members of staff. We also spoke with two relatives of people who used the service and looked at records at the home. Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

During our inspection we saw people were treated with respect and dignity by staff.

The staff we spoke with understood the procedures they needed to follow to ensure that people were safe. They were able to describe the different ways that people might experience abuse and the correct steps to take if they were concerned that abuse had taken place. Before our inspection a staff member spoke to our inspector about an issue they were concerned about. We raised this issue with the registered manager of the service. The registered manager was clear that staff could raise issues of concern with the service under a whistle-blowing procedure which would ensure the member of staff was protected during any subsequent investigation.

We looked to see whether there were the right levels of staff working at the service. We looked at the staff rotas which showed sufficient staff to meet people�s needs throughout the day. People received a consistent and safe level of support. Recruitment procedures were rigorous and thorough.

Safeguarding procedures were robust. The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs). We saw no recent applications had been submitted. Relevant staff at head office were trained to understand when an application should be made, how to submit one, and could offer the service advice and expertise in this area. We saw that one person at the service had recently had a DoLs in place, which had been regularly reviewed and later removed. The provider might like to note that recent Supreme Court judgments may have implications on whether people at the service will require an updated assessment of DoLs. The provider should review their current procedures with regard to this.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to improve.

We checked whether people�s medicines were being managed safely. We found people�s medication was being appropriately administered and managed.

Is the service effective?

People�s health and care needs were assessed with them or their relatives before they came to 108 Barnfield Avenue to determine their needs and make sure the service could meet them effectively. Specialist dietary, communication and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

We saw arrangements were in place for care plans to be reviewed regularly to make sure information about people�s care and support needs remained appropriate and accurate.

People had access to a range of health care professionals some of which visited the home.

It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff they had a good understanding of people�s care and support needs and that they knew them well.

Is the service caring?

We saw staff were attentive to people's needs throughout our inspection. Staff interacted positively with people and staff gave people time to respond. We found staff showed patience when communicating with people who lived there.

People and relatives we spoke with were positive about the care provided by staff.

Is the service responsive?

We saw people were also able to access help and support from other health and social care professionals such as the Speech and Language Therapist, Social Worker and Psychologist when necessary.

We saw there were advocacy services available if people needed advocacy support.

We saw people were able to participate in a range of activities both in the home and in the local community. The activities provided included ones people could enjoy as a group and others that met their individual interests.

People who used the service, their relatives and other professionals involved with the service completed satisfaction surveys. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were analysed and addressed.

We looked at how complaints had been dealt with at the service and found that the responses had been open, thorough, and timely. People could therefore be assured that complaints were investigated and dealt with in a timely way.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system in place to identify areas of improvement. Records seen by us showed that identified improvements were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

The staff employed to work at the home had the skills and experience needed to support the people who lived there.

People�s personal care records, and other records kept in the home, were accurate and complete.