We carried out a review of the data available to us about Southfield House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Southfield House, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service: People who used the service, their relatives and health professionals gave positive feedback about the service. They told us they felt safe in the service and with staff.
People were supported by a consistent team of staff and were protected from avoidable harm and abuse by staff who could identify and report safeguarding concerns. People's medicines were administered as prescribed and this was closely monitored.
Staff understood people's needs and risks to their safety. Risk assessments guided staff on how to safely meet people's needs and were reviewed regularly. There was enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff received appropriate training and support to enable them to perform their roles effectively. Recruitment processes were in place and followed.
Staff had developed meaningful, caring relationships with people. They supported people to maintain their dignity and independence and to have maximum choice and control of their lives. This included accessing activities in the community, going on holidays and days out. Staff supported people’s cultural and religious needs and did all they could to ensure the time they spent with their loved ones was special. It included relatives staying overnight at the service if they wished and joining them on holidays.
People were actively included in making decisions about their care and setting future goals. Care plans contained current and personalised information that supported staff to provide person-centred care including end of life care plans which identified their wishes.
People were supported to access healthcare services in a timely manner.
Staff worked with professionals and responded to their advice, to ensure people's needs were met.
People told us the food was of good quality and they were included in developing weekly menus, so their personal tastes were catered for.
The manager was committed to providing a high-quality, person-centred service. They had created a caring and inclusive culture for people and staff. People told us they could talk to the management team about any concerns or complaints and were confident they would be listened to and have issues addressed promptly.
Staff told us they received regular supervision and appraisals and received appropriate training to meet the needs of the people they supported.
The manager used audits to monitor the quality and safety of the service. They listened to people's feedback and responded to issues and concerns to continually improve the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection: Good (The last report was published 11 October 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor this service and inspect in line with our re-inspection schedule or sooner if we receive information of concern.
This inspection took place on the 9 and 12 September 2016 and was announced. At the last inspection on the 2 April 2013, the registered provider was compliant with the regulations we assessed.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission [CQC] to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The people who lived at the service received differing levels of support from staff based on their personal needs. We saw support was individualised and people’s needs were fully understood by staff. Staff worked with people to develop and equip them with the necessary life skills to live as independently as possible and we saw their best interests were promoted.
People who used the service told us they were well supported by staff and liked living at the service.
We found risk assessments were completed to guide staff in how to minimise risks to people's wellbeing without taking away people's rights to make decisions. There were also policies and procedures, and training, to guide staff in how to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. In discussions with staff it was clear they knew how to recognise abuse and how to report it to the appropriate agencies.
Staff had been recruited safely and the registered provider's recruitment procedures ensured, as far as practicable, people using the service were not exposed to staff who had been barred from working with vulnerable adults.
Medicines were handled safely and staff had received training in this area.
People who used the service were provided with a varied and individual diet. We saw they were consulted and involved with meal choice. Staff liaised with healthcare professionals on people's behalf if they needed support accessing their GP or other professionals involved in their care
Records showed people had assessments of their needs and support plans were produced; these showed people and their relatives had been consulted and involved in this process. We observed people received care that was person-centred and care plans provided staff with information about how to support people in line with their personal wishes and preferences.
Staff had received training in legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the Mental Health Act 1983. They were aware of the need to gain consent when delivering care and support, and what to do if people lacked capacity to agree to it.
There was a complaints procedure in place which was available in a suitable format, enabling people who used the service to access this information if needed. The service had developed systems to review the quality of service provision and highlight areas which required further action. Action plans with identified timescales had been produced to address shortfalls. However, we found that not all daily diary records contained detailed information about the level of care and support people had been offered. We have made a recommendation about this in well led.
People told us staff treated them with respect and were kind and caring. Staff demonstrated they understood how to promote peoples independence whilst protecting their privacy and dignity. We saw people were supported to access the local community and engage in activities they enjoyed, including voluntary work placements.
Staff had access to induction and on-going essential training, supervision and appraisal. This ensured staff had the skills and knowledge to support people who used the service safely and effectively.
We observed that positive relationships with the staff and people who used the service had been developed.
We found that staff could access information which helped them care for the people who used the service. We found that people were involved with their care plans and reviews and could influence the care they received.
We found that procedures in place for the administration of medication protected people and ensured, as far reasonably practicable, they received the right medication at the right time. We also saw that staff received regular training about how to handle medication safely.
We found that people were protected from abuse because the provider had systems in place which staff could follow to report any allegations and staff had received training about how to recognise abuse. People told us they felt safe at the home, one person told us they could talk to the staff or the manager if they had any concerns.
We found that staff received training which equipped them to care for the people who used the service.
People we spoke with were very positive about the care and support they received. They told us they were well cared for.
People we spoke with told us they felt safe living at the home and would feel comfortable discussing any concerns with the staff. Comments included 'I feel I could go to anyone if I was not happy.'
They told us they liked the staff who worked in the home. Comments included, 'The staff are good' 'The staff are very helpful' and 'There are enough staff, every time you need someone they are there.'