• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Amber House Residential Care Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

33 Shorncliffe Road, Folkestone, Kent, CT20 2NQ (01303) 254459

Provided and run by:
Mrs Maryanne Swaffer and Colin Swaffer

All Inspections

20 and 21 August 2015

During a routine inspection

We undertook an unannounced inspection of this service on 20 and 21 August 2015. The previous inspection took place on 25 June 2013 and there were no breaches in the legal requirements.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to three people who have learning disabilities, visual impairment and some complex and challenging behavioural needs.

Accommodation is provided in a detached house in a quiet residential area of Folkestone, close to public transport and local amenities and shops. Accommodation is arranged over two floors and each person had their own bedroom. The home benefitted from a large enclosed back garden.

This service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who is 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.

At the time of inspection the home was full and we were able to speak with each person. People told us that they liked living in the home, they were happy, they liked the staff and the staff were kind. They thought the home provided a relaxed and comfortable living environment.

To help us further understand the experiences of people, we observed their responses to the daily events going on around them, their interaction with each other and with staff.

Our inspection found that whilst the home offered people a homely environment and their health care needs were being supported; there were shortfalls in a number of areas that required improvement.

Some practices for the administration of medicines did not promote proper and safe management. This was because procedures intended to safeguard against mistakes and ensure the correct storage conditions of medicines were not always followed.

Information about safeguarding people from abuse was not up to date, safeguarding refresher training had not been delivered and the registered manager had not reported a matter warranting referral to the local safeguarding team.

Recruitment processes did not fully meet the requirements of the regulations because mandatory photographic identification checks were not completed.

Thermostatic temperature valves were not in place on hot water taps to which people had unsupervised access and the electrical wiring safety certificate had expired.

The provider was not meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 because Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard applications had not been made when they were needed.

The service was not always responsive to people’s needs. This was because people’s goals and wishes were not effectively progressed to encourage development of learning and exploring new activities and challenges.

Although a complaints system was in place, it was not in an accessible format for each person and did not contain the contact details of relevant external authorities.

A quality monitoring system was in place, but was not effective enough to enable the service to highlight the issues raised within this inspection.

Policies and procedures referred to out of date regulations methods used by the service to monitor and assess the service it provided were limited.

There were other elements of the inspection which were positive. People told us that they felt safe in the service and when they were out with staff.

Staff interactions demonstrated they had built rapports with people who responded to this positively. Activities were varied; people took part in activities in the home and the community and told us they enjoyed them.

People and staff told us that there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Our observations showed that staff had time to spend with people and they were patient and kind in their interaction with people.

There was a healthy choice of foods, which people enjoyed. People were consulted about the menus and able to influence changes within them.

People, staff and records confirmed that people were supported to access routine and specialist healthcare appointments to maintain their health and wellbeing.

People felt the service was well-led. The provider adopted an open door policy and worked alongside staff. They took action to address any concerns or issues straightaway to help ensure the service ran smoothly.

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this report.

25 June 2013

During a routine inspection

Three people were living at the service at the time of the inspection. Some people were unable to talk to us directly about their experiences due to their complex needs, so we used a number of different methods to help us understand their experiences. We spoke with one person, the staff on duty, the provider, read records and observed some of the support that people were given.

People were treated with respect and dignity. They were supported to make decisions about their daily lives and things that were important to them. People could choose how to spend their time at the service and were provided with activities at the service and in the community.

People were involved in their own care planning wherever possible. They had consistent staff providing care and support and their own key worker, which meant that staff knew people's individual needs and preferences.

We saw that staff had a good understanding of people's individual methods of communication and that people felt safe and were relaxed with staff.

Staff told us they had regular training which meant they were able to provide care and treatment which ensured the welfare of the people at the service.

The provider made regular checks of the service to make sure people were getting the support they needed and the service was safe. These included asking the people who lived there for their views. For example one person told us that "I like living here...and they are happy with the service".

4 October 2012

During a routine inspection

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, as some people had complex needs, this meant they were not always able to tell us about their experiences themselves. As well as speaking with people we looked around the service and observed how people interacted with staff, we spoke with staff and the registered manager and read documents including care plans and health records.

We spoke with two people who used the service. They said they liked living at Amber House and spoke positively about the staff, one person commented 'I feel safe here'. People said they chose what to do during the day, we found that people had the opportunity to be involved in a wide variety of activities both within the service and in the community.

People liked the house, they told us their bedrooms felt comfortable and familiar. One person told us they were asked how they wanted their room decorated and what colour floor covering they preferred. We saw that the service was clean and tidy and that it was maintained and decorated to a good standard.

People said the meals were good and they knew what was on the menu each day. One person said "If I don't want the food I have something else and that's fine".

During this inspection we noted a number of minor concerns which the provider may find useful to consider. They relate to evidence of agreement of care and support and availability of information in the event of an emergency.