Archived: The Community of St Antony & St Elias - 1 Allendale Road

1 Allendale Road, Mutley, Plymouth, Devon, PL4 6JA (01803) 865473

Provided and run by:
The Community of St Antony & St Elias

All Inspections

8 December 2012

During a routine inspection

When we visited the home we spoke to all three people who used the service. Their comments included: 'The staff are nice and kind'; 'They look after me well'. 'I don't like going to bed early when people tell me to'.

We found that people had to retire to their own room between 22:30 and 07:30 as there were only sleep in staff on duty and the lounge and kitchen door were locked. This action deprived people of their freedom of choice. There had been no consultation to establish whether it was in people's best interest.

We were informed by the staff that the home would be closing soon and everyone would be moving to another home. Staff and one person were not aware of the date of moving and a second person thought they may know. This later proved to be inaccurate. One person said, 'Not happy about moving' and went onto say, 'Don't want to go'. One other person said, 'Can't wait to move'.

We spoke to both staff on duty. They were clear about the actions they would take should they have any concerns about people's care and welfare. We spoke with staff about their training, staffing numbers on duty and their understanding of how care was being delivered to people living in the home.

Care workers were attentive and responsive to people's needs and treated them with respect. Care was provided at people's own pace and with kindness and humour.

The home did not have a manager in place to monitor staffing levels or following up incidences of inappropriate behaviour.

10 February 2012

During a routine inspection

When we visited the home we met all three people that lived there. We spent time talking with and having lunch with them. They told us that they were very happy with the staff that were supporting them that day, and the manager of the home. They said that the quality of the service they were receiving was very good and one person told us that the home was the best support service that they had experienced.

Throughout our visit we saw the staff talking respectfully with people and using people's preferred names. All of the conversation was friendly and peoples' first names were usually used. People's privacy and dignity was respected.

We saw many occasions when staff supported people to make choices and used their knowledge of peoples' likes and dislikes to judge people's wishes. We saw the staff preparing and delivering lunch at the kitchen dining table, for the people that were present in the home at the time. The food that was made was known to be preferred by the people that were in the home at lunchtime and when people ate lunch they said they really enjoyed the meal. People came and had lunch as they wished. Peoples' food preferences and choices were respected by the service.

Peoples' choices about their care were considered in the day to day activity of the home. We were told about the house meetings that took place regularly with the full involvement of the people that lived at the home.

People that use the service were supported to actively use community facilities.

The organisation provided an activity programme that was available to all the people that used its services throughout South Devon. For example one person took part in the Community's allotment scheme each week. We were told that the organisation's approach was to support people to be 'busy and active' thus supporting their mental health and wellbeing.

Other activities apart from those that take place routinely through the 'Activity Programme' were suggested individually to people each day and then the staff worked to support peoples' choices.

We were told about each person's individual lifestyles and activity choices. Multley Plain shopping area is close to the home and these shops and cafes were routinely used by people.

Peoples' care planning was not holistic or comprehensive and did not show how all of each person's needs were being met by the service. Every person was restricted in some areas of their personal freedoms in order to keep them safe and well. For example none of the people in the home managed their own medication or their own personal money. These arrangements were not documented to show that the person was in agreement with each of these restrictions.

People's needs were being met by competent and trained staff who were supervised by the management of the home. However, staff were not receiving some important training at the time of the inspection, for example understanding mental health conditions. These additional areas of training would support the staff's delivery of good quality care.