Archived: Redehall Cottage

People had communication needs. Some people could use key words to communicate their needs; other people used body language or gestures to communicate.

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.

At the last inspection on 6 October 2015, we told the provider to take action on staff deployment, management of risks to people and good governance. We also told the provider to ensure that processes were in place to ensure that people’s rights were protected if they lacked mental capacity. We found improvements had been made and these actions have been completed.

There were sufficient staff to keep people safe. There were recruitment practises in place to ensure that staff were safe to work with people.

People were protected from avoidable harm. Staff received training in safeguarding adults and were able to demonstrate that they knew the procedures to follow should they have any concerns.

People’s medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant and accurate records. For people who had ‘as required’ medicine, there were guidelines in place to tell staff when and how to administer them.

Staff had written information about risks to people and how to manage these. Risk assessments were in place for a variety of tasks such as personal care, health, and activities and they were updated frequently. The registered manager ensured that actions had been taken after incidents and accidents occurred to reduce the likely hood of them happening again.

People’s human rights were protected as the registered manager ensured that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed. Where people were assessed to lack capacity to make some decisions, mental capacity assessment and best interest meetings had been undertaken. Staff were heard to ask peoples consent before they provided care.

Where people’s liberty may be restricted to keep them safe, the provider had followed the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure the person’s rights were protected.

People had sufficient to eat and drink. People were offered a choice of what they would like to eat and drink. People’s weights were monitored on a regular basis to ensure that people remained healthy.

People were supported to maintain their health and well-being. People had regular access to health and social care professionals.

Staff were trained and had sufficient skills and knowledge to support people effectively. There was a training programme in place to meet people’s needs. There was an induction programme in place which included staff undertaking the Care Certificate. Staff received supervision., however it was not always regular. The registered manager told us that they would start supervisions now.

People were well cared for and positive relationships had been established between people and staff. Staff interacted with people in a kind and caring manner.

Relatives and health professionals were involved in planning peoples care. People’s choices and views were respected by staff. Staff and the registered manager knew people’s choices and preferences. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People received a personalised service. Care and support was person centred and this was reflected in their care plans. Care plans contained sufficient detail for staff to support people effectively. People were supported to develop their independence.

There were activities in place which people enjoyed. The registered manager told us that they wanted to improve what activities were on offer for two people.

The home listened to staff and relative’s views. There was a complaints procedure in place. There had been no complaints since the last inspection.

The management promoted an open and person centred culture. Staff told us they felt supported by the manager. Relatives told us they felt that the management was approachable and responsive.

There were robust procedures in place to monitor, evaluate and improve the quality of care provided. Staff were motivated and aware of their responsibilities. The manager understood the requirements of CQC and sent in appropriate notifications.

At this inspection we found that the provider had taken appropriate steps to ensure that the people who used the service could be confident that their human rights would be respected and taken into account.

At this inspection we found that the provider had implemented their action plan and that the premises were generally well maintained and safe.

We found that the provider had taken appropriate actions to ensure that confidential records were stored in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998.

People spoke about activities they were involved in, including going for a walk, using the swing, swimming, shopping and trips out. People who used the service also told us they had enjoyed their meal, liked the food they were provided and two people told us they liked coffee.

We saw people who used the service were supported to be entertained in their chosen activities and many were smiling and laughing in response to staff interaction throughout the visit.

Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider did not act in accordance with legal requirements because they did not have suitable arrangements in place for obtaining and acting in accordance with, the consent of the person using the service in relation to the care and treatment provided for them.

Although the building was in reasonable decorative condition in most areas, hygienic and clean, the provider had not always taken steps to provide care in a home that was suitably designed and adequately maintained in all areas.

We found that records and information for people who use the service was not kept confidentiality and did not comply with date protection legislation.

People spoke about liking the home, the food and their rooms, and about community activities they had been involved in.

People's relatives told us that they thought there were enough staff, their relative was looked after well and that staff kept them informed.

People's relatives also told us they felt their relative was safe there and they had not needed to raise any formal complaints, but if they needed to raise any minor concerns, they felt listened to and action would be taken to address the situation.

We saw that previous shortfalls that we had identified regarding behaviour management of an individual had been addressed.

We saw that that staff received appropriate professional development and support.