You are here

Archived: Silvermead Residential Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 March 2017

The inspection took place on the 15 and 21 February 2017 and was unannounced.

Silvermead Residential Home provides care and accommodation for up to 13 people. On the day of the inspection 12 people were living at the service. Silvermead provides care and accommodation for adults with a learning disability and other associated conditions such as Autism.

The registered provider for the service was also the owner of the home. A registered Provider is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements on the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run. A manager had been appointed to oversee the day to day running of the service and was available throughout the inspection. The manager informed us they were in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission, which they recognised would give them additional responsibilities and duties. The PIR stated the manager was attending a Plymouth City When we refer to the manager in the report we mean the person who had been appointed by the registered provider to oversee the day to day running of the service. The registered provider supported the manager and visited the service on a regular basis each week.

At the previous inspection on the 9 and 15 December 2015, we found concerns in relation to people’s rights when they lacked the capacity to make decisions for themselves. We also found concerns in relation to the way the home supported people who may display behaviours, which could be challenging and put them or others at risk. Support plans did not in all cases provide staff with sufficient information to help ensure behaviours were understood and managed safely and appropriately. People’s support plans were not in all cases sufficient in detail to reflect the level of care being provided and did not always describe how people chose and preferred to be supported. The provider sent us an action plan to tell us how they had addressed the concerns.At this inspection we found improvements had been made.

The manager had worked hard to develop people’s support plans, which reflected their current care needs. The manager had liaised with the local authority quality team and other providers of care to support them in this process. People had up to date support plans with information about their daily routines and how they chose and preferred to be supported.

Staff had undertaken updated training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Care records demonstrated when people had made decisions for themselves or when best interest discussions had been needed to support them. For example, one person had been assessed as being able to make decisions about whether or not to receive treatment for a specific health need. We saw they had been supported to make these decisions and their views and choices had been respected by the staff supporting them.

Since the last inspection the manager had improved the guidelines available to staff about people’s behaviours that could be challenging or put them or others at risk. People’s support plans had been developed to include more detail about the types of behaviours people could display, possible triggers and how staff should respond if the behaviours occurred. Advice and guidance had been sought from the specialist learning disability service.

We were told about some people’s wishes and goals for the future. However, this information was not always documented as part of their support plan, therefore it was not possible to see how the service supported people to achieve their goals, wishes and aspirations. The manager told us they undertook regular reviews of people’s support arrangements, and records were dated to show they were up to date. However, the review process was not documented; therefore it was difficult to see if people were involved in this process and how their views and wishes were consider

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 March 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected by staff who understood how to recognise and report signs of abuse or poor practice.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe.

The service managed risk appropriately and recognised people�s rights to make choices and to have control over their lifestyle.

People were protected by safe and appropriate systems for handling and administering medicines.

People were protected by safe recruitment processes.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 March 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by trained staff who knew them well, and understood their needs.

People�s rights were managed appropriately and their best interests were promoted in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to have their health and dietary needs met. Changes in people�s health was recognised and addressed promptly.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 March 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by caring and compassionate staff.

Staff supported people in a way that promoted and protected their privacy and dignity.

People were supported to maintain relationships with people who mattered to them. Relatives trusted that staff cared and they felt listened to and valued.

People were provided with compassionate and dignified end of life care.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 30 March 2017

Some aspects of the service were not responsive

People had support plans, which provided staff with information about daily routines and how they preferred to be supported. People�s goals and aspirations were not always included as part of the care plan process.

People�s support arrangements were regularly reviewed and updated. However, it was not always evident that people were involved in this process.

People�s social and leisure opportunities were not always personalised and responsive to people�s requests and specific needs.

The service was flexible and responsive to people�s changing needs. This approach had resulted in very positive outcomes for people, which had been recognised and praised by relatives and other agencies.

Concerns and complaints were listened to, taken seriously and used to drive improvement across the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 March 2017

The service was well-led.

Staff understood their role and responsibilities and were supported by an open and inclusive management team.

The staff and senior management worked in partnership with key organisations to support care provision.

There was a strong emphasis on continually striving to improve and develop the service.

Quality audits were in place to ensure the quality and safety of the service.