You are here

The Spinal Unit Action Group Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

This inspection took place on 18 May 2018 and was unannounced.

The Spinal Unit Action Group, is located in a residential area of Southport. Accommodation is provided for up to 12 people who are physically disabled. The home is fully accessible for people who require wheelchair access. It is fitted with appropriate aids and adaptations to support people in their independence and to assist people to move and transfer safely around the home. The home is in close proximity to Birkdale village and public transport links to Southport and Liverpool are within easy reach. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living at the home.

The Spinal Unit Action Group is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

We last inspected the Spinal Unit Action Group on 28 February and 27 July 2017. We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 during this inspection in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. We also made a recommendation in relation to the recording of complaints.

At this inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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.

Following the last inspection we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions; is the service safe, effective responsive and well led to at least good. During this inspection we saw that improvements had been made. The provider was no longer in breach of these regulations and had improved each key question to a rating of 'good'.

During our last inspection in February and July 2017 we found that risks to people's health and well-being were not always managed appropriately. This was because there was not enough detail in people's risk assessments which explained risk and how to keep the person safe. We found during this inspection that risk assessments had been re-formatted and now contained a high level of detail to help keep people safe from harm.

During our last inspection in February and July 2017 we found that audits and checks were not always consistently taking place to monitor the quality of the service. We found during this inspection the provider had taken appropriate action and a more robust checking and auditing system was in place.

People told us they felt safe living at the home and we received positive comments in relation to this. People also told us there was enough staff on duty at the home and there did appear to be enough staff.

Medication was safely managed, stored and administered. People received their medications on time.

Staff were recruited and selected to work at the home following a robust recruitment procedure. The registered manager retained comprehensive records of each staff member, and had undertaken checks on their character and suitability to work at the home.

The home was clean and tidy. There were provisions of personal protective equipment at the service, and staff were trained in infection control procedures.

Staff were able to describe the process they would follow to ensure that people were protected from harm and abuse. All staff had completed safeguarding training. There was information around the home which described what people should do if they felt they needed to report a concern.

The training matrix showed that staff were trained in all subjects which were mandatory to their role as stated in the provider's training policy. There was additional training in place which was overseen by medical professionals to

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was safe.

Risk assessments were completed as part of the assessment of people�s care needs. The risk assessments were detailed and gave staff clear instruction of how to manage and minimise assessed risks.

Our observations showed there was enough staff to meet people's needs in a timely way.

Medicines were managed safely and stored appropriately. Medication was only given by staff who were trained to do so.

Staff were only offered employment once suitable pre-employment checks had been carried out which included an assessment of their suitability to work with vulnerable people.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had appropriate training to reflect their roles, this was evidenced in the training matrix.

Staff received regular supervision and annual appraisals.

People were supported to eat and drink appropriately.

The service was working in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and associated legislation.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was caring.

We observed kind and familiar interactions between people who lived at the home and the staff who supported them.

Staff were able to demonstrate a good knowledge of the people they supported.

There was advocacy information available for people who wished to access this service.

People�s privacy was respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People received care which right for them, which took into account their backgrounds, needs and wishes.

Complaints were appropriately responded to and documented in line with the service�s policies and procedures.

People were supported sensitively with arrangements for end of life care.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was well-led.

The registered manager was well regarded by people receiving care and staff.

Audit processes were sufficiently robust to ensure the quality and safety of the service provided.

Team meetings place and people had there was a process to gather feedback from people who lived at the home, although this was not always documented.

There was evidence of positive working relationships with other healthcare professionals.