You are here

Flexible Support Options Limited (Thorntree Way) Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 27 August and 1 September 2014
Date of Publication: 7 October 2014
Inspection Report published 07 October 2014 PDF

Overview

Inspection carried out on 27 August and 1 September 2014

During a routine inspection

At the time of the inspection there were nine people accommodated at the service. Due to their health conditions and complex needs they were unable to share their views about the service they received. During our visit we observed their experiences and spoke with the acting manager and the staff on duty.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the regulations we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

� Is the service safe?

� Is the service effective?

� Is the service caring?

� Is the service responsive?

� Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

The provider had effective systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to help protect the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.

There were risk assessments in place to help protect people's health and safety. For example, associated risks when going out in the community, eating and drinking and the use of bedrails.

Routine safety checks and repairs were carried out by staff and external contractors carried out regular inspections and servicing. For example, fire safety equipment, hoists, electrical installations and gas appliances.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work and effective recruitment and selection processes were in place to help ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We saw policies and procedures were in place and staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and DoLS. We saw documentation that relevant people had been involved in decisions made in the best interests of people who lacked capacity.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed which included communication, expressing sexuality, medications, personal care, mobility, controlling body temperature and bed time routines. Support plans were in place which gave staff information about people's needs, equipment that may be required and how their care and support should be delivered.

We spoke with staff and they were able to describe people's individual care needs and what support they needed.

Is the service caring?

We observed the interactions between staff and the people they cared for. We saw staff interacted well with people, and supported them to eat their lunch, access community facilities and pursue their hobbies.

We spoke with two relatives whose comments included, "I can't fault the quality of care provided. The staff are pleasant and the manager does a fabulous job" and "I think Y is well cared for but I would like to see more activities provided."

We spoke with a health care professional who visited the home and they told us they felt the staff were very caring and people were well cared for.

Is the service responsive?

A complaints procedure was in place and two relatives confirmed they were aware of how to make a complaint. We saw there was information available on the notice board in the home about making a complaint.

A health care professional told us that the staff were very good at involving other care specialists if they had any concerns or issues and required advice.

Is the service well led?

The registered manager had recently left the organisation and we were told that the position had been advertised and interviews were due to take place. A senior care worker was acting as the manager until a replacement manager was found.

The service had a quality assurance system in place that included the use of surveys issued to relatives of people who used the service. This meant people were able to feed back on their experience and the service was able to learn from this.

Relatives told us that three monthly family forum meetings had been set up and they had been invited to attend to discuss day to day issues in the home.

Regular staff meetings were held which meant they were able to feedback their views and concerns to the management of the home. Staff told us they felt supported in their role and felt their views were listened to and taken into account.

We saw records to show audits were carried out by the manager to help ensure standards were maintained and any improvements could be introduced. These included audits related to care records, medications, infection control, accidents, safeguarding, health and safety, training and supervision.