You are here

Thomas House (St Helens) Limited Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 23, 28 January 2013
Date of Publication: 27 February 2013
Inspection Report published 27 February 2013 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, reviewed information sent to us by other organisations, carried out a visit on 23 January 2013 and 28 January 2013 and observed how people were being cared for. We checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care, talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider had ineffective systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.

Reasons for our judgement

We observed records that demonstrated regular health and safety checks had been carried out to ensure the home was safe to live and work in. Accidents had been recorded and monitored to ensure people's safety and welfare.

We saw that staff training was ongoing and monitored to provide support workers with training to deliver care and support to meet people's needs.

We saw evidence of different audits that had taken place including care file audits, health and safety audits and fire safety checks. We saw that monthly medication audits had been carried out, although the most recent (December 2012) was not accurate. This error was being addressed by the manager and the local authority (contracts monitoring department) were also aware of the medication shortfalls and were continuing to monitor the medication procedures.

We obtained feedback from some visiting relatives and from completed quality assurance questionnaires. The feedback from people's relatives was positive about the quality of the service and how they were actively involved and included in the reviewing and monitoring process. They said they were kept informed and updated about all aspects of their relatives’ support and care.

We saw comments received following the most recent survey / questionnaires (November 2012), of the twenty three surveys sent out, twelve had been returned. One of the comments was "I know I am able to speak to the manager informally. Perhaps it would be useful to discuss more formally with her”. The manager said, “This has been addressed and I have held a meeting with the resident’s advocate and future meetings will take place when necessary”. Other comments were, “Thank you to the staff for their professionalism and caring attitudes” and “Thank you for your compassion and caring, not just to (name) but to all the other residents".

We saw no evidence of any complaints being received by the service; however the complaints policy was more than seven years out of date. It gave an incorrect name and address for the Care Quality Commission (Regulator) and it also gave incorrect guidance about making a complaint and who would investigate a potential complaint. Correct information would give people the opportunity to be able to appropriately raise any concerns or complaints with the relevant organisation.