Archived: Newpark

This responsive follow up inspection was carried out by one inspector, who visited unannounced on the 30 September 2014. During the visit we met and talked with staff on duty, and checked that improvements to the premises had been made to achieve compliance. The inspection process was assisted by a senior support worker

They helped answer question;

Is the service safe?

Below is a summary of what we found.

Action had been taken and improvements had been carried out to the premises.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The service was safe. Action had been taken to address areas of non-compliance raised at the last inspection in May 2014, and improvements had been made to the environment.

Equipment at the home had been maintained and serviced regularly. Records required to be kept to protect people's safety were maintained, held securely and available when required.

Mobility and equipment needs had been identified and provided.

There were systems in place to provide on-going monitoring of the home. This included checks of the environment, fire safety and health and safety.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People are treated with respect and dignity by the staff.

Risk assessments had been completed to reduce the risks to people's safety and welfare whilst supporting them to be as independent as possible. One person we spoke with who used the service said 'I am learning to be independent so that I can get my own flat'.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. The service had an on-call system in place to ensure that staff could access a senior manager at all times of the day and night for advice.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This means that people will be safeguarded as required.

The provider had not made sure that the premises were properly maintained. This meant that some areas of the building were in need of repair and were not safe or comfortable for people to use.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Care had been planned in a person centred way based on the needs and wishes of each individual. We saw that staff delivered the care that people's plans said they needed. Staff we spoke with demonstrated that they understood people's needs and knew what support their care plan said they wanted and needed.

The service was managed around each individual's needs and daily activities rather than as a group, for example staff were allocated on the rota depending on who had activities that day. People were encouraged to do things for themselves where they were able to. One person told us 'There is a rota for jobs in the house, we all take turns. Today I have just cleaned my bedroom'.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People that used the service told us they were happy living at Newpark and felt that the staff treated them well. One person said 'I like all the staff here'.

People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed. One person said 'They ask us what we want'.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities within and outside the service regularly.

Records showed that staff were quick to respond to people's health needs and to support them to see health professionals when they needed to.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. Staff had taken time to explain the procedure to people.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that shortfalls that had identified had been addressed, although not always promptly. However, we found that shortfalls in the maintenance of the premises had not been identified through this process and there was no action plan for addressing these issues.

There was a new manager in post who had been working in the service for three weeks. The manager had met with all staff to carry out a supervision session with them. This was an opportunity for staff to talk about their work and identify any training or support they needed. Staff had received the training they needed to carry out their roles safely and effectively. The manager had a good understanding of the needs of the people using the service and current care issues. Since our last inspection the provider had introduced new ways of monitoring the quality of the service.

People told us they were happy with the service and that the staff treated them well. One person said, 'They help me with everything I need' and another person said, 'I like living here'. People were encouraged to be independent and were supported to access activities in their local community. One person said, 'I like to go out and the staff take me out where I want to go'.

The provider was not ensuring that the quality of the service was being monitored. Where people were asked their views about the service these were not always acted upon. There was a lack of systems for reviewing accidents to ensure they didn't happen again. There was a lack of effective systems for ensuring that people received their prescribed medication and staff did not have the knowledge they needed about people's medication to ensure they could respond to side effects. The provider was not able to show that staff had completed the training they needed to be able to care for people in a safe way.