Background to this inspection
Updated
9 March 2017
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 21 February 2017 and was announced. The provider was given notice because the location provides a small residential respite service and we needed to be sure that the service was being used at the time of or inspection visit. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Prior to this inspection a request for a PIR was not made. The PIR 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 gave the provider the opportunity to supply us with key information, which we then took into account during our inspection visit.
We reviewed the information we held about the service. This included information shared with us by the local authority commissioners. Commissioners are people who work to find appropriate care and support services which are paid for by the local authority. We reviewed statutory notifications sent to us from the provider. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.
We spoke with one person that used the service and seven people’s relatives by telephone on 20 February 2017; before we met with the registered manager on 21 February 2017. This was to gain feedback on people’s experiences of the short stay respite services provided for their family member.
During our inspection visit on 21 February 2017, we spoke with one team leader and two care staff, the registered manager and the operations manager. We reviewed two people’s support by looking at their care plan, medicine records and pocket money records to see how their care and support was planned and delivered. We checked whether staff had been recruited safely and were trained to deliver personalised care to people. We looked at other records related to people’s care and support which included the service’s quality assurance audits.
Updated
9 March 2017
The inspection took place on 21 February 2017 and was announced. This was because we wanted to make sure people were using the respite service at the time of our inspection visit.
Voyage 1 Limited is a large provider of care services. This location is registered to provide residential accommodation, care and support to people with a range of medical conditions and disabilities. The service offers short respite stays for to up to three people, at any time, who are away from their own home. At the time of our inspection visit, one person was staying at the home. Twelve people regularly used the home for respite stays.
There was a registered manager in post. 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. The registered manager was registered with us for this service.
At our last inspection in March 2016, we rated the service ‘requires improvement.’ Improvements were required in how the provider and staff worked within the principles of the Mental capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and in how staff were supported by managers. At this inspection, we checked to see if improvements had been made and found they had. There had been changes in the management structure and an existing Voyage1 Limited manager had become registered with us for this service during June 2016. A team leader had been appointed and staff felt supported in their roles.
The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), and staff worked within the principles of this Act and understood the importance of giving choices to people and respecting people’s decisions. Staff understood when they should work in a person’s ‘best interests.’
Staff received an induction and were trained so they had the skills they needed for their job role. There was a safe recruitment process to ensure that staff were of good character. Staff felt there were enough staff on shift and that they could ask for help if needed from the provider’s supported living service; Stretton Lodge, located next door.
Staff knew how to keep people they supported safe during their short stay at the home. There were processes to minimise risks to people’s safety. Staff were trained to recognise signs of abuse and understood how to protect people from the risk of abuse and knew how to report any concerns.
People were supported by trained staff to take their medicines safely as prescribed. Some records had not been completed as required and immediate action was taken to address this.
People and relatives described staff as kind and felt they had a caring attitude. Staff said they would attempt to resolve any concerns a person had. Relatives knew how to make a complaint if needed, however, the complaints policy displayed in the home was not in a format accessible to people using the service.
People had individual care plans and work was in progress to personalise these and involve people in their care plan as far as possible. People were supported to do things they enjoyed and take part in activities of their choice.
People had choices about how and where they spent their time. People were supported to select what meal they would like and independence was promoted by involving people in cooking tasks or personal care tasks.
There were systems and processes to monitor and review the quality of the service people received. This was through feedback from an annual survey sent to people’s relatives which they completed with their family member. Daily checks and audits were undertaken at the service.