You are here

St Mungo's Broadway - 2 Hilldrop Road Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 August 2018

We carried out this inspection on 30 May 2018 and 5 June 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. We informed the provider that we would be returning on the second day.

St Mungo's Broadway – 2 Hilldrop Road is a care home which is registered to accommodate a maximum of 29 people with a history of alcohol misuse, homelessness and mental health conditions. On the days of our inspection, the service was providing care for 23 men.

During this inspection we found that the service had been steadily improving and addressing all issues identified by us during our inspections in December 2016 and May 2017. Staff and people using the service commented positively about the changes within the service. Both staff and people were encouraged to share their opinions, by the provider, about the service and contribute to any developments in the service provision.

The service had 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. The current registered manager had joined the service in December 2017. The registered manager was supported by the members of the providers management team including the regional director and the head of services as well as the newly appointed deputy manager. The management team had the training and experience necessary to manage the regulated activity of accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care.

At this inspection we found that the service had made improvements to how they managed medicines and people received their medicines in a safe way. Some additional improvements were needed to ensure PRN (as required) medicines administration was recorded correctly at all times and that PRN stock levels reflected the needs of people who used the service.

Risk to health and safety of people had been assessed and people lived in a safe environment. The provider needed to ensure all risk assessments carried out were equally robust and that appropriate records were in place to help to keep people and staff safe at all times.

The service provided people with freshly prepared food and drink which was nutritional and in suitable amounts. Staff were in the process of creating a nutrition information folder to ensure kitchen and care staff had an easy access to this information.

The provision of social activities at the service was reduced due to the recent changes in staff structure. However, the service was in the process of reviewing how activities were provided to ensure there was sufficient amount of interesting and fun things to do for people who used the service.

Staff helped to protect people from avoidable harm from others. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and they understood their role in ensuring people using the service were safe from any type of abuse. Robust recruitment procedures in place ensured that only suitable staff worked with people. There were enough staff deployed on each shift and people’s needs were met with no delay.

The registered manager had assessed needs and preferences of people who used the service before they moved in. People were able to visit the service during the assessment process to find out if they liked it and if they would like to live there.

Staff were provided with regular mandatory and specialist training to enhance their skills and to be able to provide safe and effective care to people. Staff were also supported and their performance was monitored in regular one to one supervisions and yearly appraisal of their skills.

The service worked within the principles of The Mental Capacity act 2015 (MCA). Best Interest Decisions had been made when people did not have the capacity to decide about their care and treatment. S

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 8 August 2018

The service was safe and the management team had been proactively addressing any issues around safety to staff and people.

The service had made improvements to how they managed medicines. More improvements were needed to ensure all PRN medicines were managed correctly at all times.

The service assessed risk to health and safety of people who used the service. Some improvements were needed to ensure all risk assessment was equally robust. The provided needed to ensure appropriate records were in place to guide people on how to keep people safe and staff safe at all times.

Staff protected people from avoidable harm from others and people told us they felt safe with staff who supported them. Robust recruitment procedures helped to ensure people were supported by suitable staff.

There were appropriate staff numbers deployed to support people and to respond to people�s needs.

There were systems to help protect people from the risk of the spread of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 August 2018

The service was effective.

The service provided people with nutritious, freshly prepared food and drink. The information about people�s dietary needs and choices was not always readily available to the chefs. However, a nutrition and hydration information folder was being developed so all staff at the service had access to information about people�s dietary requirements.

People�s needs and preferences were assessed before they started living at the service.

Staff received appropriate training so they knew how to support people effectively and safely. Additional support and monitoring were provided via one to one supervision and yearly appraisal of staff skills.

People were supported to maintain a healthy life and staff had made appropriate referrals to healthcare professionals when needed.

The service worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff asked people�s permission before providing any care.

The service provided a spacious and comfortable environment where people could socialise or rest depending on their preferences.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 August 2018

The service was caring.

Staff supporting people were kind, caring and empathic towards the ways people choose to live their life.

People and staff knew each other well and people appeared comfortable in their environment.

Each person had a key-worker who helped them to be involved in decisions about the care and support they received.

Staff respected people�s privacy and dignity at all times and they asked for people�s permission before providing personal care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 August 2018

The service was responsive.

The service was in the process of reviewing the provision of activities so a sufficient level of leisure engagements was available for people.

People�s care plans were person centred and provided staff with sufficient information on people�s care needs.

Staff took time to get to know people�s needs and they had good understanding on how to support people effectively.

There was a complaint policy in place and the service had followed it when dealing with complaints received from people.

The service did not provide end of life care.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 August 2018

The service was well led.

Improvements were observed across all areas of the service delivery. Some progress was still required and the management team were already in the process of addressing these areas.

People spoke positively about the new management team and changes within the service.

Staff felt supported by the management team and they thought their opinions were listened to and they mattered.

Staff were encouraged to use their skills, experience and interests to contribute to the service further developments within the service.

People were encouraged to voice their opinion about the service and their voice mattered.