You are here

Archived: Shassab Residential Care Home Inadequate

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Inadequate

Updated 14 July 2017

The inspection took place on 27 and 28 March 2017. The first day was unannounced which meant the service did not know we were coming. At the previous inspection in March 2016, we had found the service was not meeting the regulations in several areas such as person centred care, safe care and treatment, submission of notifications, safeguarding people from improper treatment and staffing levels and governance. Based on our findings in March 2016 we also took enforcement action relating to the provision of safe care and treatment and governance systems.

Shassab Residential Care Home (Shassab) is a family-run home which caters for people of different ages from the Asian community, and offers support to people with mental health needs and/or learning disabilities. The home can accommodate up to eight people. There are four bedrooms on the ground floor and four on the first floor. At the time of this inspection, there were six people living there. They each had their own bedroom.

There was a manager in post who has been registered with the Care Quality Commission since October 2010. The manager was also the registered provider. 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.

Most of the people living at Shassab and some of the staff did not speak English as a first language. We used an interpreter to help us communicate with them.

We found breaches, some continuing, of the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014 in safe care and treatment, staffing, person centred care, safeguarding people from improper treatment, need for consent and governance systems. Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to any concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘special measures’. Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration.

For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

The service did not consistently deploy sufficient staff to help ensure people were kept safe. This issue had been raised at the previous inspection.

Recruitment processes were not safe as the provider did not adequately undertake all pre-employment checks to help ensure staff

Inspection areas

Safe

Inadequate

Updated 14 July 2017

The service was not safe.

There was not enough staff on duty at all times. This was also the case at our last inspection.

Risk assessments did not always provide specific instructions on how to manage risks. Risk levels were not rated and no indication if the actions taken minimised or removed the risk. Potential risks were not identified and measures put in place to ensure people were kept safe at all times.

Not all people living at the care home had a personal emergency evacuation plan in place. Improvements were needed to manage infection prevention.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 14 July 2017

The service was not effective.

People told us staff were helpful and good at their jobs.

The staff induction and mandatory training offered was not robust. All staff required refresher training in all mandatory areas.

The service was not working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). There was no evidence to demonstrate consent to care had been obtained according to the legislation. Staff including the registered and deputy managers� knowledge about MCA and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards was limited.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 14 July 2017

The service was not always caring.

People told us staff treated them with kindness and were caring. We saw examples that demonstrated the service could be more respectful.

People told us staff always sought their consent before undertaking any task.

People were encouraged to maintain their independence in making decisions about the support they received.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 14 July 2017

The service was not always responsive.

Activities were neither structured nor were they person-centred.

Care plans did not consistently address people�s specific needs.

There was a complaints procedure in place. People told us they knew how to raise a complaint but we were told no one had had reason to do so.

Well-led

Inadequate

Updated 14 July 2017

The service was not well led.

Governance systems in place failed to identify critical aspects of keeping people safe and ensuring that effective care and support was provided.

Policies and procedures were in place and some of these had been translated into Asian languages so that staff had the right guidance and support to work effectively.

Staff meetings were held regularly and staff confirmed that these did take place.