Archived: St Mungo's Broadway - 93-95 Shirland Road

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and staff told us. It also takes account of the information and records we looked.

If you would like to see the evidence that supports our summary then please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

St Mungo's Housing Association - 93 - 95 Shirland Road provides accommodation and support services for people with histories of homelessness recovering from mental health difficulties. The accommodation is made up of 18 single rooms including one crisis room with shared bathroom facilities. There was a shared kitchen area, a communal eating/meeting space, activities room and TV lounge. There was also a separate fully equipped kitchen where meals were prepared by a full time chef. On the day of our visit there were 16 people using the service.

We looked at four support plans and saw that these contained needs assessments and action plans. We saw that risk assessments had also been completed in areas such as social isolation and behavioural management. We spoke to four people who used the service. They told us 'my keyworker supports me in every way' and 'the manager is really good and they listen to residents.'

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. There were panic alarms in people's rooms and in the corridors. Staff had been trained to deal with emergencies by ensuring people were safe and comfortable and by calling 999 when and if needed. There were first aid boxes kept in the kitchen area and the main office.

Is the service effective?

Staff had completed an induction before commencing employment. The induction had included core subjects such as health and safety, safeguarding and medication handling. The induction had been followed by a period of shadowing more experienced staff. We spoke to four staff members who told us 'we work as a team' and 'they encourage me to do courses.'

People who used the service expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their support needs in collaboration with the staff team. Staff told us 'this is a dynamic project' and 'we aim for maximum client involvement at every level.

Is the service caring?

One of the people who used the service told us "I love it here.' There were a range of activities available for people who used the service. This included exercise classes, gardening projects, baking, day trips, literacy and language classes. There was a life skills and move on worker who organised sports sessions such as swimming, football and gym workouts. One person who used the service told us '[staff] are interested in our welfare.'

We saw that a client satisfaction survey had been carried out in September 2013. From the results we saw that people were satisfied with the support they received and felt the service was sensitive to their cultural and/or religious needs.

Is the service responsive?

Staff told us meetings for people who used the service took place on a monthly basis where issues such as the range of activities, food choices, the home environment, staffing and well-being were addressed. Staff told us people set the agenda for meetings and often invited others to come and speak and share information with them.

People who used the service were provided with a resident's handbook which outlined the service's aims and objectives and philosophy of care. The pack also contained information on licence agreements, assistance with move on and finding independent accommodation.

There were systems in place to record accidents/incidents and information available to people who used the service about how to make a complaint. People who used the service told us 'it's good to go and talk to someone to improve things in the house' and 'things get fixed pretty quickly.'

Is the service well-led?

The service had a registered manager in post. Staff we spoke with told us that the manager operated an open door policy. We were told that staff received supervision every month and were appraised annually. We looked at staff records and saw that supervision had taken place for most within the last month. Staff we spoke with told us that the management team were "concerned about how others feel" and "really supportive."

Our inspection of 10 January 2013 found that not all people's risk assessments were being updated every three months, in line with the provider's policy. Our inspection of 22 May 2013 found that all people's risk assessments and care plans were upto date. The electronic records system alerted care staff and managers if an assessment was due or overdue.

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment by staff that had been through a recruitment process and subjected to the appropriate pre-employment checks. People who use the service were involved in the interview process. Staff had received training on infection control and there was a policy and procedure in place on infectious diseases. Environmental checks were carried out weekly by staff.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service people received. People were asked for their feedback via a variety of forums and there was evidence that incidents were reported, investigated and the necessary actions taken.

People's care was not always planned in a way that ensured their safety and welfare. We saw that staff were provided with comprehensive information on a person's needs when they were referred to the service. Staff carried out further assessments on the person's risk to themselves and to others. The provider's policy stated that these should be updated every three months, or as required. However, we saw that in two people's support plans, their risk assessments had not been updated in over three months.

There were appropriate systems in place to ensure that medication was stored and administered safely. We looked at people's Medication Administration Records and saw that people had received their medication when they needed it. There was a minimum of two care staff on shift during the week and at weekends, which staff told us was sufficient. People told us that they felt there were enough staff to meet their needs. They knew who they could talk to if they had a concern and we saw evidence that people's complaints were investigated.