Archived: Frank Walsh House

Frank Walsh House provides housing with care. People live in their own home and receive personal care and support from staff at pre-arranged times and in emergencies. At the time of our visit 28 people lived at Frank Walsh House.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People felt safe using the service and care workers understood how to protect people from abuse. There were processes to minimise risks to people’s safety; these included procedures to manage identified risks with people’s care and for managing people’s medicines safely. Checks were carried out prior to care staff starting work to ensure their suitability to work with people who used the service.

The managers understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and supported people in line with these principles. Care workers had good awareness of how to support people who lacked capacity to make certain decisions and had restrictions on how they lived their lives to keep them safe.

People were happy with the care they received and told us they had regular care workers that were kind and caring. Care workers maintained people’s privacy and treated people with respect. People were supported, where possible, to maintain their independence and live their lives as they chose.

Care workers received an induction and a programme of training to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively. People said care workers had the right skills and experience to provide the care and support they required. Care plans and risk assessments contained relevant information for care workers to help them provide personalised care to people.

People knew how to complain and were able to share their views and opinions about the service they received. Care workers were confident they could raise any concerns or issues with the managers, knowing they would be listened to and acted on.

There were processes to monitor the quality of the service provided and understand the experiences of people who used the service. This was through regular communication with people and staff, returned surveys, spot checks on care workers and a programme of other checks and audits.

We found that people had given their consent to the care and support to be provided. People had up to date care plans that indentified the care and support they needed. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people's care needs.

People told us they were happy with the care and support they received. One person said 'I'm here on what they call a short stay tenancy. It's been excellent for me as I've been able to regain my independence."

All the people we spoke with said there was a consistent staff team and that carers were friendly and polite. One person told us, 'I've been here for years so I know the staff well. Some do come and go but there are several who have been here longer than I have.'

We looked at how medication was managed and how the service recruited staff. We found people received their medication as prescribed and staff had been properly checked during recruitment. These procedures should ensure people who use the service remain safe and well.

We looked at how records were being managed. We found records were stored securely, accurate and up to date.

We found the risk management procedure was not sufficiently robust to make sure people remained safe and well. Procedures for obtaining peoples views on the service and how complaints were being managed had not been implemented consistently. This meant people could not be sure there views and concerns had been listened to.

We issued a compliance action to the provider. We also asked the provider to send a report to us explaining what they had done to improve these areas.

We received a report from the provider in December 2012. The report told us what the provider was doing to become compliant and the dates the improvements would be completed.

The report from the provider showed that appropriate action had been taken to improve the assessing and management processes of the agency. The provider was compliant with this regulation.

Staff we spoke with knew how to recognise symptoms of abuse and said they would refer any concerns to the manager or senior staff. The manager knew the procedure for referring safeguarding concerns to the local authority. We found there were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people living at Frank Walsh House.

The agency had procedures in place for monitoring the service provided but we found that these were not being implemented consistently. People had risk assessments completed but where there had been changes in risks the assessments had not always been reviewed and updated. Auditing procedures needed to be more robust to make sure people received the care identified in their care plans. All complaints received had not been recorded so people could not be assured concerns were taken seriously and looked into.

We asked people if they were satisfied with the service. One person told us 'I am very happy with the care I receive,' and another said, 'Yes. I am satisfied with everything.'