Archived: MCCH Society Limited - 101 Brook Street

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service Safe?

People living in the home had assessments of possible risks to their health and safety and these were reviewed as and when required.

Staff had the training and knowledge they needed to make sure people living in the home were cared for safely. We found staff recruitment practices were safe and that the relevant checks had been completed before staff worked at the home. We saw all communal parts of the home and some people's bedrooms (with their permission) and found the premises and equipment were safe and well maintained.

Is the service effective?

People's care needs were assessed and they told us staff understood their needs and provided the care and support they needed. People were involved in making decisions about their health and personal care wherever possible. If people could not contribute to their care plan, staff worked with their relatives and other professionals to assess the care they needed.

People's care plans were detailed and covered all of their health and personal care needs. The health care records we looked at demonstrated that people had access to external health care professionals' support as required.

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with told us staff were kind and caring. Each of the care plan files we looked at described the person's likes, dislikes and daily routines.

We observed staff maintained an individual's dignity and demonstrated respect whilst providing care and support.

Is the service responsive to people's needs?

People we spoke with confirmed staff sought consent before care was provided. Staff we spoke with were able to demonstrate how they would seek consent from a person using the service. We observed staff treated people with respect and involved them in making choices and decisions about their care. However, in four care plans we looked at staff had not obtained the individual's written consent for specific aspects of their care.

When people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider had not acted fully in accordance with legal requirements. Some people had been assessed as lacking the capacity to make some decisions about their care; but a best interest decision making process had not been followed in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice. Following our inspection the provider wrote to us and informed us they had started arranging best interest meetings for each person who had been assessed as lacking capacity where specific decisions were required with the support of the local authority Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) team.

Is the service well-led?

The home had an experienced and qualified manager who promoted good standards of care and support. Staff told us they felt supported by the manager and senior staff. They also told us they understood their roles and responsibilities.

The provider had effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. These included regular audits of medication, care plans, health and safety. There was evidence that learning from these audits took place and appropriate changes were implemented.

We found that people were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. People's care and support needs were assessed and regularly reviewed. Staff understood people's care needs and knew how to protect them from risk and harm. Staff we spoke with felt they were adequately supported. There was evidence that quality monitoring audits had taken place on a regular basis, and that learning from the audits had taken place and necessary changes were implemented.