You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 September 2017

Regent House provides accommodation without nursing for up to 23 people with mental health needs whose primary needs are for emotional support and care.

Our previous inspection of 7 June 2016 found that the service required improvement. Improvements were required to ensure that all risks to people were assessed and guidance was provided to staff about how the risks were reduced. Improvements were also required around the auditing of medicines and ‘as and when required’ medicines (PRN) to ensure that people received their medicines safely. Some staff had not had any recent training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and lacked awareness of what the Mental Capacity Act meant for people. Improvements were needed to ensure that staff received regular supervision and effective appraisal of their performance.

.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Regent House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk. This comprehensive inspection was undertaken to check that further improvements had been made.

This was an unannounced inspection. At the time of our inspection there were 18 people living at the service.

Whilst this inspection was carried out to review improvements, it was prompted in part by notification of an incident following which a person using the service was involved in an altercation with another person using the service was injured and later died. The incident is subject to an on-going police investigation.

The Commission made further enquiries into the circumstances leading up to the person’s death to consider whether the incident was avoidable and whether it should take further action under its criminal enforcement powers. The Commission has reported to a coroner and considers the incident was not as a result of unsafe care and treatment, avoidable harm or a significant risk of avoidable harm. We are however continuing to liase with the Coroner, Police and Local Authority on this matter.

A safeguarding investigation was undertaken by the local mental health safeguarding team. The health and welfare of people using the service were reviewed and it was concluded that people were happy and well cared for and Regent House was a comfortable and caring home.

At this inspection we found that although improvements had been made following our last inspection, further improvement was still required in relation to risk assessments to ensure they included sufficient detail to guide staff on how to minimise any identified risk or potential risk.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to ensure people’s medicines were obtained and stored safely.

People received care that was personalised to them and met their individual needs and wishes. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s choices, views and preferences and acted on what they said.

Systems were in place which safeguarded people from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood the various types of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to. Procedures and processes guided staff on how to ensure the safety of people. There were sufficient numbers of staff employed who had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs.

The service was up to date with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2015 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff sought consent from people before supporting them with their care.

People were supported to see, when needed, health and social care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and they were supported to eat and drink sufficiently.

Processes were in place that encouraged feedback from people who used the service, relatives, and visiting professionals. There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service.

The management team were approachable and there was an open culture in the service. Quality assurance processes were used to identify shortfalls and address them and as a result the service continued to improve.

We have made a recommendation about the management of medicines.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 29 September 2017

The service was not consistently safe.

There were systems in place to minimise risks to people and to keep them safe, however assessments could be more detailed.

There were sufficient staff to meet people�s needs.

People were provided with their medicines safely and when they needed them.

Staff knew how to recognise abuse or potential abuse and how to respond and report these concerns appropriately.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 September 2017

The service was effective.

Staff members were trained and supported to meet people�s individual needs. The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 was understood by staff and appropriately implemented.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to ongoing health care support.

People�s nutritional needs were assessed and they were supported to maintain a balanced diet.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 September 2017

The service was caring.

Staff had a good knowledge of people�s individual needs and preferences.

The positive and friendly interactions of the staff promoted people�s wellbeing.

People were involved in making decisions about their care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 September 2017

The service was responsive.

People were provided with personalised care to meet their assessed needs and preferences.

There was a complaints policy in place.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 September 2017

The service was well-led.

The management team were visible in the service and there was an open and transparent culture. Staff were encouraged, well supported and were clear on their roles and responsibilities.

Quality assurance processes were used to identify shortfalls and address them to ensure that the service continuously improved.