Archived: Care Management Group - 16 Kings Road

At the time of our inspection the service had a new manager who had been in post since 13 July 2018, they were in the process of registering with CQC to become the registered manager. 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. Throughout this report we refer to this person as the manager.

Records were not always accurate and did not consistently provide staff with enough guidance to meet people’s needs. Whilst there was a range of systems in place to assess monitor the quality of service, they were not always effective in identifying and driving improvement.

We have made a recommendation about the provider’s governance framework and reviewing and evaluating all documentation.

People were supported to maintain good health and were involved in decisions about their health. They were provided with personalised care and support. Staff had the knowledge and skills to carry out their roles effectively and their training was updated annually. People were very positive about the care they received.

Risks to people and staff safety were identified. Staff had completed safeguarding adults training and knew how to keep people safe and report concerns. Staff had a good understanding of systems in place to manage medicines. People's medicines were safely managed. There were thorough recruitment checks completed to help ensure suitable staff were employed to care and support people. There was sufficient staff available to ensure people's wellbeing, safety and security was protected.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. People were supported by staff who had the skills and training to meet their needs. The manager understood their responsibilities in relation to the MCA and DoLS however, staff did not always understand their responsibilities in relation to the MCA.

People's independence was promoted and support workers encouraged them to do as much for themselves as possible. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and were sensitive to their needs regarding equality, diversity and their human rights. People were encouraged and enabled to be involved as much as they were able in making decisions about how to meet their needs.

There were regular opportunities for people and staff to feedback any concerns at peoples one to one meetings; house meetings, staff meetings and supervision meetings. Records showed these were open discussions. Feedback was consistently positive, with many complimentary comments about the support provided, the staff and the overall service.

People were supported to take part in activities that they enjoyed. Arrangements were in place to obtain the views of people and their relatives and a complaints procedure was available for people and their relatives to use if they had the need.

Staff told us they enjoyed working for the organisation and spoke positively about the culture and management of the service.

People told us they liked living at the home. Relatives said the home provided a good standard of care. Both relatives said their relative living at the home had developed emotionally and that their behaviour was calmer. Relatives said the staff treated people well and that they were kept informed of any relevant incidents or developments.

We saw the home used innovative methods of communicating with people about activities they would like to do as well as for addressing behaviour and for raising any concerns people had. These included the use of communication activity plans and pictorial devices where people could remove and insert relevant photographs to say what they wanted. People also had access to tablet computers for aiding communication and for strategies about their behaviour.

We saw that each person's needs were assessed and there were comprehensive care plans for personal care, medicines, behaviour and activities. People were supported to develop independent living skills and attended a range of community facilities.

Staff were supported to attend relevant training courses. We saw that newly appointed staff received an induction to prepare them for the job.

The home had a number of ways for monitoring the quality of the service it provided. These included regular checks on the standard of care, seeking people's views about the service they received and reviews of any incidents in the home.

Assessments had been completed involving a range of professionals. Support plans had been developed with the person and covered all aspects of their daily living. People were involved in a wide range of activates which they enjoyed.

People told us they had been involved in the decor of the home and felt the home offered them a pleasant environment. All areas of the home were clean and well furnished.

People told us they liked the staff and knew them well. We were told there is always enough staff on duty to ensure people's needs are met.

The manager was able to show us a clear recording of any complaint made and what action had been taken. Each person had details of how to make a complaint.