Background to this inspection
Updated
28 January 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on 28 October 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors, both of whom had experience in learning and physical disability care.
Before the inspection we gathered information about the home by contacting the local authority safeguarding and quality assurance team. In addition, we reviewed records held by CQC which included notifications, complaints and any safeguarding concerns. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. This enabled us to ensure we were addressing potential areas of concern at the inspection.
On this occasion we did not ask the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
During our inspection we spoke with four people living at the home and three members of staff, which included the manager. We observed how staff cared for people, and worked together. We also reviewed care and other records within the home. These included three care plans and associated records, three medicine administration records, two staff recruitment files, and the records of quality assurance checks carried out by the staff.
At our previous inspection in August 2013 we had not identified any concerns at the home.
Updated
28 January 2016
Care Management Group (CMG) 62 Manor Green Road is a home for up to five people with mental health needs and learning disabilities. At the time of our visit in October 2015 five people lived here.
Care and support are provided on one level. Communal areas include a large lounge and separate dining area. Extensive adaptations have been made to the home to meet people’s needs, such as smooth flooring and wide corridors to aid with people’s mobility. This has been done without losing the character and homely feel of the home.
The inspection took place on 28 October 2015 and was unannounced. At our previous inspection in August 2013 we had not identified any concerns at the home.
There was not currently a registered manager in post. The new manager had begun the application process to become registered with us in September 2015. 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.
One person said, “It’s a nice house, staff are nice, it’s my home and I love it here.” The staff were good at meeting the needs of the people that live here. There was positive feedback about the home and caring nature of staff from people and their relative’s. Staff showed very good level of care and kindness to people during the inspection. The staff were seen to be very kind and caring to people and treated them with dignity and respect.
Where people did not have the capacity to understand or consent to a decision the provider had followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). An assessment of people’s ability to make decisions for themselves had been completed. The manager had these under review to ensure they were up to date and based on specific decisions, rather than general statements of a person’s capacity. Staff were seen to seek peoples consent, and give good clear explanations about choices and decisions that needed to be made.
Where people’s liberty may be restricted to keep them safe, the provider had not always followed the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure the person’s rights were protected. Staff’s understanding of their roles and responsibilities within the DoLS was good. Applications had not always been made where someone’s freedom may be being restricted to keep them safe.
People were safe at CMG 62 Manor Green Road. The home had been well maintained and was clean and tidy. Regular maintenance and improvements were made to the building to ensure it met the needs of the people who live here. Adjustments had been made to the environment to better suit the needs of individuals, for example hand rails to support people’s mobility.
There were enough staff to meet the needs of the people. An assessment of people’s needs had been completed by the manager and staffing levels were set to match them. The provider had carried out appropriate recruitment checks to ensure staff were suitable to support people in the home.
The training and induction processes for staff was good. One person said, “ We have well qualified staff.” Staff were up to date on their training, and their knowledge of people’s medical conditions, as well as cultural needs was good. Staff had regular one to one meetings with their manager, and were able to discuss their performance, training needs, and any concerns they may have. Staff told us they felt very supported by the management, and they loved working here. One said, “The manager is good as he has encouraged me in my career. I have learnt a lot from him and the deputy.”
Quality assurance processes had been effective at improving the home for the people who live here. Regular audits were completed around the home by staff and visiting senior managers. Items identified as requiring action had been completed within the timescales set by the provider. The manager had a clear plan for what was required to further improve the home.
People, their relatives, and staff had the opportunity to be involved in how the home was managed. Regular feedback was sought to check that the home was meeting people’s needs. The feedback we received, or read, was positive about the staff and home.
Care plans were based around the individual preferences of people as well as their medical needs. They gave a good level of detail for staff to reference if they needed to know what support was required. People received the care and support as detailed in their care plans. People were supported to maintain good health as they had access to relevant healthcare professionals when they needed them.
People received their medicines when they needed them. Staff managed medicines in a safe way and were trained in the safe administration of medicines. People understood what their medicines were for, so they could make an informed choice about whether to take them or not.
People had access to activities that met their needs. They had access to the local community and could attend a variety of activities and clubs. More individualised activity plans were being developed with people by the staff, so that people’s interests could be supported.
People had enough to eat and drink, and received support from staff where a need had been identified. Specialist diets to meet medical, religious or cultural needs were provided. People were involved in what they ate, and they had a good variety and choice of food and drink.
People and relatives knew how to make a complaint. The complaint policy was in an easy to read format using pictures and clear language so people would be able to understand it. No formal complaints had been received since our last inspection.
We have identified one breach in the regulations. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.