Archived: Mrs Linda Joyce Fennell - 17 Wheatfield Drive

There were three people living in the home at the time of the inspection.

This was an announced inspection that took place 18 and 20 May 2016.

Mrs Linda Joyce Fennell 17 Wheatfield Drive had a registered registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like 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.

Systems to monitor the risks to people’s safety and welfare were not effective. The registered manager completed monthly checks which identified health and safety checks had not been completed for three months but no action was taken, for example there was no evidence of Legionella or water temperature checks or portable appliance testing (PAT). Fire evacuation plans and procedure information was in place in event of an emergency evacuation.

The registered manager did not have oversight of staff training needs. However staff received training which they felt was effective and supported them in providing safe care for people which included medication and health care procedures, emergency first aid, epilepsy awareness, and moving and handling. We have made the recommendation that the registered manager has an active role in identifying staff training needs.

The care people received was personalised and they were included in deciding how and when they wanted their needs to be met. Care plans and risk assessments had been completed to ensure the safety and well being of people using the home. We have made a recommendation about risk assessments and care plans. The majority of documentation relating to care was accurate and up to date but in some areas there was conflicting information or information was missing.

There were policies in place for giving people their medicines and evidence that this was being followed. There was regular auditing of medicines and staff competencies were checked to ensure high standards were maintained.

The people using the home have capacity to make decisions about the care they receive and the activities they want to do. Staff were aware of the mental capacity act and used this knowledge appropriately to support people to make their own decisions.

There was a programme of supervision and appraisals for staff. Staffing levels were reviewed regularly with on-going recruitment to fill the current vacancy. Robust recruitment checks were completed before staff began work.

People were encouraged to participate in community activities as well as pursuing their interests at home. People were given choices about their day to day activities and daily routines were flexible around their needs and preferences. People were asked for their consent before care was provided and had their privacy and dignity respected.

People’s nutritional needs were monitored and reviewed. People had a choice of meals provided and staff knew people’s likes and dislikes. People gave positive feedback about the food and said that they were involved in menu planning and shopping to ensure their needs and preferences were met.

Referrals were made appropriately to outside agencies when required. For example GP visits, dentists and Occupational Therapists.

On inspection we found one breach in Regulations. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The welfare of people who used the service was promoted by a variety of opportunities for social and recreational activities. People said that they enjoyed the activities provided. One person told us 'I like to go to the bakery to get cakes.' People were supported to be as independent as possible in their daily tasks and by learning new skills. One person told us 'I get the bus to college.'

People were protected from the risk of abuse. There was a system in place that supported people with their financial affairs.

People benefitted from comfortable accommodation, which was suitably designed to meet their needs. People's health and safety was protected from risks associated with their activities within the environment in which they lived. People told us that they enjoyed living at the service.

People who used the service were supported by enough staff who knew how to meet their needs.

People were asked for their views about the service provided. We saw that people were able to communicate their views to staff, who listened and took action.

The welfare of people was promoted by social and leisure activities. People told us 'I like holidays and outings and going to Hastings.' Records showed that people's health care needs were met and that they had access to health care professionals. People were assessed for any risks associated with the support they received.

People were asked for their views about their care and support and these were acted on. One person told us 'The staff are very nice and easy to talk to if you have any problems about what is upsetting you or if something is making you angry.' People's values and human rights were respected. One person was supported to vote and another told us 'I decided to not to eat meat and become a vegetarian.'

The manager and one other member of staff supported people in the home, but the service ran a risk that sufficient relief staff may not be found in the event of unplanned absence. Staff received training and support, which helped them to meet people's needs. The manager knew what to do if people were at risk of abuse. The manager undertook to record financial procedures for people who used the service.