You are here

St Mungo's Broadway - 53 Chichester Road Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 March 2018

This inspection took place on 9 February 2018 and was unannounced. St Mungo's Broadway - 53 Chichester Road is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission [CQC] regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to provide care and support for 26 people who have used alcohol in the past or currently using it. During the day of our inspection there were 24 people living at the home, four of which receive personal care. Although the service supports men with life-long alcohol addiction, the service is rated because it is registered to provide residential accommodation with personal care.

Our previous inspection on 21 February 2017 found two breaches of regulation and made two recommendations. We rated the service as “requires improvement”. During this inspection on 9 February 2018 we found that the service had taken necessary action and made improvements. The service is now rated as “Good”.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

People who used the service told us that they were satisfied with the care provided and said that they felt safe in the home and around care staff. People told us they were treated with dignity and respect in the service.

Systems and processes were in place to help protect people from the risk of harm. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults. Risk assessments were in place which clearly detailed potential risks to people and how to protect people from potential harm. We noted that risk assessments had been prepared with the involvement of people and were reviewed regularly.

Systems were in place to ensure people received their medicines safely. Arrangements were in place for the recording of medicines received into the home and for their storage, administration and disposal.

We looked at the recruitment process to see if the required checks had been carried out before staff started working at the home. We looked at the recruitment records and found background checks for safer recruitment had been carried out.

People who lived in the service and care staff told us there were sufficient numbers of staff to safely meet people’s needs. Management explained that there was consistency in respect of staff with a number of staffing having worked for the service for many years. They also advised that there was flexibility in respect of staffing so that they could deploy staff where required.

People in the service were able to smoke in their bedrooms but were not allowed to smoke in communal areas. We discussed this arrangement with management and they explained they ensured people were supported to smoke in a safe manner. Fire and emergency procedures were in place and there was evidence to confirm that necessary checks were carried out regularly.

On the day of the inspection, the home was clean and there were no unpleasant odours. However, we noted that there were several areas of the environment that were 'tired' looking. The bathrooms on the first and second floor were in need of renovation. We also noted that some carpets in communal areas were old and in need of replacing. We have made a recommendation in respect of this.

Our previous inspection found that there were gaps in staff training and staff had not received yearly appraisals. We found a breach of regulation in respect of this. Our inspection in February 2018 found that the service had made improvements in this area. There was documented evidence to confirm th

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 March 2018

The service was safe. People told us that they felt safe in the home and around care staff.

Arrangements were in place in relation to the recording and administration of medicines.

Risks to people were identified and managed so that people were safe. Staff were aware of different types of abuse and what steps they would take to protect people.

Appropriate systems were in place to manage emergencies.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 March 2018

The service was effective. Staff had completed relevant training to enable them to care for people effectively. Staff were supervised and felt well supported by their peers and management.

Care staff had completed MCA training. Staff and the registered manager were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were provided with choices of food and drink. People's nutrition was monitored and dietary needs were accounted for.

People had access to healthcare professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 March 2018

The service was caring. People were treated with kindness and respect when we observed staff interacting with people.

People were involved in making decisions about their care.

Care plans provided details about people’s needs and preferences.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 March 2018

The service was responsive. Care plans were person-centred, detailed and specific to each person's individual needs. People's care preferences were noted in the care plans.

People had access to activities and they were supported to access the community.

People had regular reviews of their care plans with staff to ensure that the care provided met their needs.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 March 2018

The service was well-led. People who used the service told us that management were approachable and they were satisfied with the management of the home.

The home had a clear management structure in place. Staff were supported by management and told us they felt able to have open and transparent discussions with them.

The quality of the service was monitored. Regular checks were carried out and there were systems in place to make necessary improvements.