You are here

Archived: Care Management Group - 62 Manor Green Road Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

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.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 January 2016

The service was safe.

There were enough staff to meet the needs of the people.

Potential risks of harm had been identified and people were kept safe because these risks well managed.

Staff understood their responsibilities around protecting people from harm. They were clear on their roles and responsibilities should they suspect abuse had taken place.

People felt safe living at the home. Appropriate checks were completed to ensure staff were safe to work at the home.

People’s medicines were managed in a safe way, and they had their medicines when they needed them.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 28 January 2016

The service was not always effective

Where people’s freedom was restricted to keep them safe the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were not always met.

People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met. Assessments of people’s capacity to understand important decisions had been recorded. The manager was in the process of reviewing these to ensure they were in line with the Act.

Staff said they felt supported by the manager, and had access to training to enable them to support the people that live here.

People had enough to eat and drink and had specialist diets where a need had been identified.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 January 2016

The home provided a good level of care to people.

People told us the staff were caring and friendly. We saw some excellent interactions by staff with people, which showed staff cared and respected them.

Staff knew the people they cared for as individuals, and ensured people’s choices were supported.

Staff took the time to give people information about their care so that they could make informed choices.

People’s diverse needs were understood by staff, and they went out of their way to ensure these needs were supported.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 January 2016

The service was responsive to the needs of people.

Care plans were in place and gave detail about the support needs of people. People’s involvement in their care planning was clear.

People had access to activities; these were being improved to be more individualised and meet the interests and need of people.

People knew how to make a complaint. There was a clear complaints procedure in place.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 28 January 2016

The service had not always been well- led.

Care records were clear and completed fully, some needed to be updated.

The previous manager had not submitted notifications of incidents in accordance with the regulations. The new manager had identified the issue and put plans in place to correct this.

Quality assurance checks were effective at ensuring people received a good level of care.

People, their relatives and staff were involved in improving the home. Feedback was sought from people via an annual survey and meetings. Information received was used to improve the home.

People were complimentary about the friendliness of the staff. Staff felt supported and able to discuss any issues with the manager.