You are here

Archived: Saint John of God Hospitaller Services - 1-2 Cuthbert Close Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 June 2016

On the 16 March 2016 we inspected 1 - 2 Cuthberts Close. This was an unannounced inspection.

The service was last inspected in December 2014 and was fully compliant with the outcome areas that were inspected against.

Saint John of God Hospitaller Services situated at 1 and 2 Cuthberts Close is registered to provide care for a maximum of 12 people with learning disabilities. The accommodation compromises of two bungalows each with six single rooms. The service is located in the residential area of Queensbury, close to Bradford and Halifax.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

Medicines were not managed safely and appropriately and medicine audits were not robust enough to identify the concerns we raised.

There were safeguarding adult’s policies and procedures in place to protect people from possible harm and incidents and accidents were recorded and acted on appropriately.

Assessments were conducted to assess levels of risk to people’s physical and mental health. Care records contained guidance to provide staff with information that would protect people from harm.

There were safe recruitment practices in place and appropriate recruitment checks were conducted before staff started work. There were appropriate levels of staff on duty and deployed throughout the home to meet people’s needs.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies and there were systems in place to monitor the safety of the premises and equipment used within the home.

People were supported by staff that had appropriate skills and knowledge to meet their needs and staff received regular supervision, training and an annual appraisal of their performance.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People’s right to make informed decisions independently was respected.

People were supported to eat and drink suitably healthy foods in sufficient quantities to meet their needs and ensure well-being. People had access to health and social care professionals when required.

Interactions between staff and people using the service were positive and staff had developed good relationships with people. People were supported to maintain relationships with relatives and friends. Care records documented people’s involvement in their care and where appropriate relatives were involved.

Staff were knowledgeable about people's needs with regards to their disability, race, religion, sexual orientation and gender and supported people appropriately to meet their identified needs and wishes.

People were supported to engage in a range of activities that met their needs and reflected their interests.

There were quality assurance and governance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Concerns raised from audits fed into action plans to rectify problems or issues.

Relatives told us they knew who to speak with if they had any concerns. There was a complaints policy and procedure in place and management was aware how to deal with complaints in line with the provider’s policy.

The provider took account of the views of people using the service and their relatives through annual residents and relative’s surveys.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act (2008) Regulated Activities Regulations 2014. You can see what action we asked the provider to take at the back of this report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 18 June 2016

The service was not always safe.

Medicines were not managed safely and medicine audits we�re not sufficiently robust.

There were safeguarding adult�s policies and procedures in place to protect

people from possible harm. Incidents and accidents were recorded and acted on appropriately.

Assessments were conducted to assess levels of risk to people�s physical and mental health.

There were safe recruitment practices in place and appropriate recruitment

checks were conducted before staff started work.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 June 2016

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff that had appropriate skills and knowledge to

meet their needs and staff received regular supervision, training and an annual appraisal of their performance.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge and understanding of the Mental

Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were supported to eat and drink suitably healthy foods and sufficientamounts to meet their needs and ensure well-being.

People had access to health and social care professionals when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 June 2016

The service was caring.

Interactions between staff and people using the service were positive and staff had developed good relationships with them.

People were supported to maintain relationships with relatives and friends.

Care records documented people and their relative�s involvement in their care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 June 2016

The service was responsive.

People received care and treatment in accordance with their identified needs and wishes.

Detailed assessments of people�s needs were completed and reviewed in line with the provider�s policy.

People were supported to engage in a range of activities that met their needs and reflected their interests.

Relatives told us they knew who to speak with if they had any concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 June 2016

The service was well-led.

Quality assurance and governance systems in place for the monitoring of the quality of the service were on the most part robust.

The culture in the service was positive, person centred and open.

The provider took account of the views of people using the service and their

relatives through annual residents and relative�s surveys.