Azalea House

Updated 17 March 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection was a comprehensive inspection. This inspection took place on 7 February 2018 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector from the Care Quality Commission.

Before the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service, including the notifications they had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us. We also reviewed information we had received from the local authority.

During the inspection we spoke with three people who used the service. We spoke with the registered manager and two support staff. We looked at the care records of three people using the service and the recruitment and training records for four staff employed by the service. We reviewed information on how the provider managed complaints, and assessed the quality of the service.

Updated 17 March 2018

Azalea House 1 is a residential care home, registered to provide care and support for up to five people with mental health needs and learning disabilities. The home is located next door to its sister home, Azalea House 2. Both homes share facilities which include the garden and communal areas. People living in both homes also move freely from each location and staff also support each other. The homes are currently registered as two separate locations although they work as one. For the purpose of this report we will be focusing on Azalea House 1.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People were safe because there were effective risk assessments in place, and systems to keep them safe from abuse or avoidable harm. There was sufficient numbers of staff to support people safely. Staff took appropriate precautions to ensure that people were protected from the risk of acquired infections. People’s medicines were managed safely, and there was evidence of learning from incidents.

People’s needs had been assessed regularly and they had care plans in place that took account of their individual needs, preferences, and choices. Staff had regular supervisions and they had been trained to meet people’s individual needs effectively.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were being met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported by caring, friendly and respectful staff. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care and support being provided. Where required, people had been supported to have enough to eat and drink to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Staff regularly reviewed the care provided and were guided through regular input by the person receiving care to ensure the care provided continued to meet their individual needs, in a person centred way.

The provider had an effective system to handle complaints and concerns.

The service was well managed and the provider’s quality monitoring processes had been used effectively to drive continuous improvements. The registered manager provided stable leadership and effective support to the staff. They worked well with staff to promote a caring and inclusive culture within the service. Collaborative working with people, their relatives and other professionals resulted in positive care outcomes for people using the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.