• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Kay Sera Sera

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

7 Willowbrook, Derrington, Stafford, Staffordshire, ST18 9NN (01785) 244684

Provided and run by:
Mrs Jennifer Elizabeth Lucas and Michael Patrick Lucas

All Inspections

18 June 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected Kay Sera Sera on 18 June 2015. The service is registered to provide support and accommodation for up to four people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection, four people used the service. At the last inspection of the service on 2 April 2014, we asked the provider to make improvements in the following areas: How people’s medicines were managed, ensure adequate staffing levels and how the quality of the service provided was assessed and monitored to ensure that people received safe and good quality care. During this inspection, we found that improvements had been made in how people’s medicines were managed and in ensuring sufficient staffing levels; however further improvement was needed in the way the proprietors monitored the quality of the service.

The service did not have a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The service was managed by the owners, whom we refer to as ‘the proprietors’ in this report.

People’s care records did not always reflect the care they received. People did not always have risk assessments and management plans in place to guide staff on how care should be provided. This meant that people were at risk of receiving inappropriate care that did not meet their needs.

The provider did not consistently follow the guidelines of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure that people were not being unlawfully restricted of their liberty. Staff did not always have a good understanding of the relevant requirements MCA and DoLS. The MCA and the DoLS set out the requirements that ensure where appropriate; decisions are made in people’s best interest when they are unable to do this for themselves. This meant that people’s liberties were at risk of being restricted.

Action had not been taken to ensure that improvements had been made against all the areas identified for improvement during the last inspection. Newly recruited staff did not have an induction. The provider did not always ensure that staff received relevant training to ensure that they carried out their roles effectively.

People told us they felt safe and protected from harm. Staff understood what constituted abuse and knew what actions to take if abuse was suspected. There were appropriate numbers of staff employed to meet people’s needs. People’s medicines were managed safely.

People were cared for by staff that knew them well and understood their care needs. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and provided care in line with these.

People told us they liked the food and were supported to eat and drink adequate amounts. People were offered a choice during meals. People were supported to attend healthcare appointments and staff liaised with their GP and other healthcare professionals as required in order for people’s health and social care needs to be reviewed.

People told us and we observed that staff were kind and treated them with dignity and respect. People’s care was tailored to meet their individual needs. Care plans detailed how people wished to be cared for and supported. People were involved in the care planning process and in decisions about their care and treatment. People and their relatives told us that the provider responded to their concerns appropriately. There were systems in place to deal with complaints and concerns.

People who used the service, their relatives and the staff were very complimentary about the registered manager of the service. They told us the proprietors were always available and were approachable. We observed that the proprietors had a hands-on management style. People and their relatives told us they provided feedback and obtained information about services on a regular basis.

We identified that the provider was not meeting some of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 we inspect against and improvements were required. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

2 April 2014

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced scheduled inspection. As part of this inspection we checked that the providers had addressed the issues we raised at our last inspection in October 2013. During the inspection we spoke with people that lived at the home, staff and the providers.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the caring?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found '

Is the service safe?

There were sufficient staff on duty to make sure that people's needs were met. The providers provided support at night and over the weekend. Care staff provided support when the providers were not available.

When we completed our last inspection the provider could not demonstrate that staff were suitable and had the skills and experience to provide people's care. Improvements had been made but staff had not received all the necessary training to undertake their role. A compliance action has been set and the provider must tell us how they are going to improve.

The provider had improved the way it stored people's medication. The recording and checking of medication needed some improvement to make sure people could be assured that they received their medication as prescribed by their doctor. We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. Relevant staff had not received training to understand the circumstances when an application should be made.

Improvements had been made in the way the providers assessed and managed risks and made sure equipment was maintained in a safe way but there remained some areas that needed to be addressed.

Is the service effective?

People that were able to told us they were happy living at the home. They said that the care was good and it met their needs. One person said: 'I'm very happy. It is really good'. Our observations of staff supporting people showed they understood people's needs and knew how they liked their care to be provided. One relative had commented to the service: 'No concerns about the care. I doubt I ever will'.

Is the service caring?

People told us that the staff were kind and caring. They said they were treated with respect. People told us that the staff respected their wishes and care was provided in the way that met their preferences. Our observations showed that staff demonstrated a compassionate and caring attitude towards people. People were supported in a friendly and patient way. People were encouraged to do things at a pace that suited them.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people were supported to take part in activities of their choice and that people's spiritual needs were promoted. When people's care needs changed the staff responded promptly to ensure that care met their needs. The provider had an informal complaints procedure. People were not made aware of how or where to make a complaint. We have asked the provider to tell us how they are going to improve this. People and relatives had the opportunity to complete a survey to express their views about their care.

Is the service well led?

The home did not have a registered manager in post. The provider assured us that plans were in place for an application to be submitted.

The service worked closely with other agencies to support people's health care needs.

The service had some systems in place to check the quality of the service but some areas needed to be addressed to make sure that any shortfalls in people's care were promptly addressed.

29 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We inspected Kay Sera Sera on a planned unannounced inspection. We were informed that the proprietors were away on a seven week break. The proprietors had not notified us of their absence. We found improvements were required to reduce the risk to people in their absence. We returned the following day to ensure measures had been put in place to minimise the risk.

We looked to see if people had consented to their care at Kay Sera Sera. We saw evidence and people told us that they had consented to their care.

We had previously had concerns that people's needs were not always met due to the lack of appropriate equipment and staff training. At this inspection we found that people who used the service were not always protected against the risks of receiving inappropriate or unsafe care.

We checked to see if the service had systems in place to manage people's medication. We found that the medication was not stored or administered safely.

We found the service did not always follow the correct recruitment procedures when they employed new staff.

At our previous inspection we had concerns that there was insufficient, suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Following this inspection we continued to have concerns.

We had previously been concerned that the service did not have an effective system to monitor the quality of the service at Kay Sera Sera. At this inspection we found a slight improvement in the systems.

11 October 2012

During a routine inspection

We visited Kay Sera Sera on a planned unannounced visit, which meant the service did not know we were coming.

When we arrived people were just getting up for breakfast and getting ready to attend day activities, which take place within the service.

The service was busy with people coming to use the day service and relatives and friends supporting.

Staff were observed to be kind and polite and busy with the people who used the service.

One person who uses the service told us "I like it here, they are very good to me"

A member of staff told us "It's like a big family here".

We have concerns over how much involvement the people who used the service have in the planning of their care, their care and welfare, staff levels and training, quality monitoring and record keeping.