You are here

St Mungo's Broadway - 53 Chichester Road Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 9 February 2018

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 21 February 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 21 February 2017 and was unannounced. St Mungo's Broadway - 53 Chichester Road is a care home which provides 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. 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.

At our last inspection on 27 and 28 November 2014 the service was rated as “Good” and there were no breaches of regulations.

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 at the home. We observed that people were well cared for and appeared comfortable around care staff. People told us they felt safe in the home and around care staff. Care professionals we spoke with said they were confident people were safe in the home.

Systems and processes were in place to help protect people from the risk of harm and staff demonstrated that they were aware of these. Care staff we spoke with knew how to recognise and report any concerns or allegations of abuse. Risk assessments had been carried out and care staff were aware of potential risks to people and how to protect people from harm. However, we noted that people’s risk assessments varied in respect of detail and information.

On the day of the inspection we observed that care staff were not rushed and were able to complete their tasks. There was consistency in terms of care staff so that people who lived in the home were familiar with them and care staff were familiar with each individual’s needs. The majority of care staff we spoke with told us there were generally sufficient numbers of staff for them to attend to their duties.

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.

There were systems were in place to make sure 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. However, during the inspection we observed that the temperature of the cabinet where medicines were stored had not been monitored and recorded. We made a recommendation in respect of this.

We found the premises were clean and tidy and there were no unpleasant odours. There was a record of essential inspections and maintenance carried out. We also saw evidence that the home had fire procedures in place and carried out checks in respect of this. The home had an infection control policy and measures were in place for infection control.

Staff had undertaken an induction when they started working at the home and we saw evidence of this. We were provided with a matrix for twelve members of staff detailing what training they had completed. We noted that there were some gaps in staff training in relation to first aid, medicines management and health and safety. At the time of the inspection we noted that care staff had not received Mental Capacity Act (MCA) training and this was confirmed by care staff we spoke with.

We saw evidence that staff had received supervision sessions in the last year. Staff had not received an appraisal in 2016. We found a breach of regulation in respect of the gaps in training and lack of appraisal in 2016.

There were arrangements to ensure that the nutritional n

Inspection carried out on 27 & 28 November 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 27th and 28th November 2014 and was unannounced.

During our previous inspection on 18 November 2013 we found that there were no breaches of legal requirements. St Mungo's Broadway - 53 Chichester Road provides 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. 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. People who use the service can continue to consume alcohol in a controlled environment; this is called ‘harm reduction’. There is no pressure on people to move into other accommodation, the service provides ‘a home for life’. St Mungo's Broadway is close to public transport, shops and community facilities.

The provider informed the Care Quality Commission that the registered manager was on one year sabbatical leave until 1 August 2015. A temporary manager had been appointed to act in the registered managers’ absence. 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.

People who used the service told us they were very satisfied with the care they received. People said they felt safe at the home. Risks to people who used the service were managed appropriately and guidance was available for staff to ensure people were able to take risks safely. We found people were cared for, or supported by, sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. Medicines were managed safely and a robust procedure ensured that care workers had detailed guidance to follow when administering medicines. Staff completed extensive training to ensure that the care provided to people was safe and effective to meet their needs.

The temporary manager and staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to refer people who were assessed as having limited capacity to the supervisory body. This meant that people were safeguarded and their human rights respected. We found the location to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Suitable arrangements were in place and people were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met.

Staff demonstrated a caring attitude towards the people living at 53 Chichester Road. Throughout our inspection we saw innovative and creative examples of good care that helped make the service a place where people were included and consulted.

People were involved in the planning of their care and were treated with dignity and respect. People were offered a wide range of activities which were facilitated in-house or in the local community. Complaints were responded to appropriately and resolved in line with the project complaints procedure.

The service was well-led. Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and analysed. There were robust quality assurance systems in place. The provider encouraged feedback from people who used the service, care staff, relatives and outside professionals, which they used to make improvements to the service. The service demonstrated innovative practices of involving and engaging the local community to work together with the service to improve the lives of people who used the service and people living in the community.

Inspection carried out on 18 November 2013

During a routine inspection

People's care and support needs were discussed and agreed with each person or their advocate. Two members of staff told us that at times people who used the service refused the support on offer; however, staff said they would try different strategies to ensure people received the support which was identified in their care plan.

We spoke with three people who used the service. One person told us "I am very happy, staff are second to none. I thought I would never be able to control my problem, but for people with my problem this place is perfect."

Records showed that the provider worked along with various other agencies such as the GP, hospitals, opticians, dentist and the local authorities who had placed people in the service.

The provider ensured that arrangements were in place to maintain a safe environment for people who used the service. Records showed that various repair works had been discussed with people during resident meetings and people had been kept informed on work which was being undertaken.

Three members of staff told us about the staffing arrangements and we found that there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.

We visited the office for both staff and the managers and found that records were kept securely. We found during our visit that most records we requested were located promptly.

Inspection carried out on 20 December 2012

During a routine inspection

On the day of the inspection there were 21 people using the service and six staff on duty. We were able to speak to the majority of people who use this service and they told us that they were very happy at the home.

People told us that staff treated them with dignity and respect and that they were fully involved in all decision making that affected their care. We observed staff supporting people in a friendly and professional way and saw that

people were being offered choice with regard to menus, activities and care preferences.

Care plans showed us that care was personalised and that people had good access to health professionals. People that we spoke to explained that they felt safe at the home and would feel confident to talk to staff or management if there were any issues of concern.

Inspection carried out on 8 December 2011

During a routine inspection

During our visit to St Mungo's Housing Association - 53 Chichester Road we met several people using the service and spent a significant part of our visit talking with them. We asked people questions about what it was like living in the home, and we observed peoples’ interaction with staff and with others.

People told us they were generally happy living in St Mungo's Housing Association - 53 Chichester Road. They informed us they liked their bedrooms, enjoyed the food and made decisions about their lives. People confirmed they had the opportunity to participate in a variety of activities if they wanted to, and if they decided not to get involved in an activity this decision was respected by staff and by others.

People confirmed they received the care and support that they wanted and needed. They told us staff listened to them and were approachable. During our visit people showed signs of ‘well being’. We saw that people smiled and laughed, and they approached staff and others without hesitation.

Staff spoke of enjoying their job supporting and caring for people at St Mungo's Housing Association - 53 Chichester Road.They told us there was good staff teamwork and they felt supported by the manager, deputy manager and by other staff. During our visit we saw staff treat people with respect and interact with them in a positive and sensitive manner.

The manager and records told us that staff received appropriate relevant training to ensure that they had the knowledge and skills to carry out their role in providing people with the care and support that they needed.

Records and the manager informed us that the quality of the service was monitored closely and improvements to the service carried out.

Comments from people using the service included; “It’s nice here,” “I like my room,” “My room is nice,” “I go to meetings,” “I say what I think,” “It’s ok here, I have been here for a few years,” “Staff help me,” “I talk to staff,” “I have a key worker, I can talk to them,” “I know my key worker, they are nice,” “I get my medication,” “I have the tablets that I need,” “There are people that I can talk to if I am worried,” “I know who to talk to,” “The food is lovely, I get what I want,” “The cook knows what I like,” “I get up and go to bed when I want,” “I have my own things,” “I go out when I want, and I go for walks.”

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)