You are here

Archived: Outreach Community & Residential Services - 86 Meade Hill Road Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 4 August 2014
Date of Publication: 21 August 2014
Inspection Report published 21 August 2014 PDF | 77.12 KB

Overview

Inspection carried out on 4 August 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask: Is the service safe? Is the service caring? Is the service effective? Is the service responsive to people�s needs? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on speaking with two people who used the service and two staff members who supported them, observation and looking at records.

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with who lived at the home told us they felt safe at the home. They said they could approach the registered manager if they had any worries or concerns. They were confident they would be listened to and that the problem would be sorted out.

A person who lacked capacity to make decisions was not allowed to leave the house unaccompanied to ensure they stated safe from harm, for example, from traffic or getting lost. We saw that an application for a standard deprivation of liberty safeguard had been made to ensure that the home was acting in line with the law.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Is the service effective?

People told us that their individual needs, choices and preferences were acted upon and were respected by the staff supporting them. In the section of the person�s care records �How best to support me� it stated, �Read my pen picture (one page profile) and ask me if there is anything else you want to know.�

The deputy manager told us about what action had been taken when the physical health needs of a person had changed. They also gave us examples of how people�s health needs were monitored, for example, a dementia assessment.

Is the service caring?

Interactions between people and the staff supporting them were seen to be frequent, friendly and the atmosphere was calm and relaxed.

People were supported by support workers who knew them well.

Is the service responsive to people�s needs?

Wherever possible people who lived at the home were encouraged to maintain contact with their family and friends.

We were told by people we spoke with that their Jewish faith and culture was observed, for example, attending Shule, celebrating Shabbos and buying kosher food.

People were involved in activities within the community. We saw in the �Dreams and Aspirations� section of their support records that the person had said they wanted to go out and play pool. We saw that with the help of a befriender this goal had been achieved.

Is the service well-led?

The manager of the home was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). We saw records that showed that the registered manager carried out regular audits of the home�s records and health and safety checks.

To ensure their continuous professional development the deputy manager was undertaking a leadership and management course.

A person who lived at the home was a representative on the organisation�s management committee. This gave them the opportunity to have a say in how the service was run.