We carried out a review of the data available to us about 16 Crompton Street 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 16 Crompton Street, you can give feedback on this service.
16 Crompton Street is a care home providing support to 6 people at the time of inspection.
People’s experience of using this service:
Everyone who lived at the home told us they felt safe. Medication was stored securely and administered by staff who were training to do so. There were recent checks that had taken place on the environment, and contractual checks to ensure the home was safe to live in. There was enough staff on duty to be able to support people safely. Staff were recruited and selected safely and recruitment checks were in place before staff started work. Staff were able to explain the course of action they would take if they felt anyone was being harmed or abused. Infection control procedures were robust, and there was information available for the use of COSHH products. The registered manager had identified their approach to incidents and accidents would benefit from being more detailed, they were in the process of changing this.
The registered manager and the staff were working in accordance to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where people’s liberty was being restricted, we saw the reasons for this had been clearly recorded. There were some instances were consent was not clearly recorded in people’s support plans, however when we spoke with people, they said their support plans had been discussed with them. People were supported to make themselves meals and snacks. People planned their menus and were supported by staff to partake in the cooking. We saw how consideration was given to people’s special dietary needs. The registered manager and the staff team worked with external organisations to ensure people had accessed health services when they needed to.
Everyone commented on the caring nature of the staff. Staff spoke positively and respectfully about the people they supported. There were polices in place which described the importance of diversity and inclusion and support plans evidenced that people’s needs and choices were recognised and supported.
There was information recorded in support plans with regards to people’s likes, dislikes and routines. Staff knew people well, and people told us they were getting support which was right for them. There was a complaints process in place. We saw there were no formal complaints recorded, and any complaints made were not escalated by the people who made them. The registered manager was in the process of establishing a way to record these as ‘niggles’ rather than complaints. There was no one accessing an end of life pathway at the home, however, staff had knowledge in their area.
There was a registered manager during this inspection. The registered manager was knowledgeable regarding their role and had reported any notifiable incidents to CQC in line with their regulatory responsibilities. There was a process in place to audit service provision, we saw that some audits had identified the need for some improvement to made to the communal areas. The registered manager had escalated the findings of these audits as required.
Rating at last inspection: The previous report was published 9 November 2016. The home has a rated of Requires Improvement in well led and Good in all the other key questions. The overall rating at the last inspection was Good.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating of the last inspection. The rating for this service is good.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
16 Crompton Street is a residential service which provides accommodation and personal care for a maximum of seven people. At the time of the inspection three people were living at the service.
A registered manager was not in post. However the manager of the service was in the process of applying to become the registered manager. The manager was unavailable on the day of the inspection. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The provider had implemented an approach to quality monitoring which was appropriate for the size of the service. However, these processes had failed to identify issues relating to the completion of essential safety checks and missing references.
We have made a recommendation about this.
The service had processes to monitor safety and employed external contractors to service and check; gas safety, electrical safety and fire equipment. We saw that checks had been completed in each area within the previous 12 months.
Risk to the people living at the service was appropriately assessed and recorded in care records. Each risk assessment focused on maximising the person’s independence while safely managing any risks and had been recently reviewed. People told us they were involved in decisions about care and taking risks.
Medicines were safely stored and administered. However the service did not have an effective procedure in place to monitor stock levels.
Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the people living at the service. Staff were required to complete a programme of training which included; first aid, administration of medicines, people handling and adult safeguarding. The training matrix provided indicated that all training required by the provider was up to date.
The people living at the service were actively involved in choices about food and drink and had free access to the kitchen. We were told that they were being supported to be more independent with shopping and food preparation.
People living at the service were supported to maintain good health by accessing a range of community services. We were told that they had a GP, optician and dentist and had regular check-ups. We saw evidence of this in care records. We also saw evidence of health action plans which detailed a range of healthcare needs and other important information.
Throughout the inspection we observed staff interacting with the people living at the service in a manner which was compassionate and caring. We saw that staff spoke regularly with the people living at the service. They explained what they were doing and discussed their needs and activities. Staff knew the care needs of the people well.
We saw that people had choice and control over their lives and that staff responded to them expressing choice in a positive and supportive manner. With the exception of the administration of medicines, it was clear that the provision of care was not task-led and did not adhere to a fixed timetable.
Information was provided in a way that made it easier for people to understand. Staff took time to re-word things when people didn’t initially understand. We saw that some important information, for example consent documents, were produced in plain English and made use of images to support people’s understanding.
Privacy and dignity were protected and promoted by staff. Staff spoke with respect about the people living at the service and promoted their dignity in practical ways. Each person had a lock on their bedroom door for additional privacy and security. All confidential information was stored securely in an office within the service.
We saw from our observations that the people living at the service were involved in discussions about care on a day to day basis. We also saw evidence that people were actively involved in regular reviews of their care. Each person had a monthly ‘keyworker’ review which was signed by the person and the staff member.
The people living at the service were supported to follow their interests and an activities file was maintained which included photographs and comments from people living at the service. Activities were also discussed and planned at regular ‘service user’ meetings.
The service had been developed with input from the people living there and the staff team. Communication between staff and the manager was open and regular. We saw evidence that staff meetings had taken place regularly. Information relating to people living at the service and developments had been shared at the meetings.
Staff were clearly motivated to do their jobs and enjoyed working at the service. Staff understood their roles and demonstrated that they knew what was expected of them.
Records indicated that notifications of important events had been submitted to the Care Quality Commission appropriately. Safeguarding referrals to the local authority had been made in an appropriate and timely manner.
Everyone living at Isis has a care plan that guides staff in how to support them. People told us that they know about their care plan and that staff discuss the contents with them. This gives people the opportunity to raise any issues that they may have and for any changes to the care and support they need to be quickly noted and addressed.
The people living there also told us that they always get the support they need with their personal care. Staff support them to make and keep health appointments and give them time to talk with other professionals. The people we spoke with all had their medication looked after by staff. They told us that they get this on time.
Shopping for food is carried out locally and the people living at Isis explained that they are involved in planning menus and in going shopping with staff support. This helps to ensure people can retain and build on their lifestyle skills. They also explained that they can choose their favourite meals each week, have a snack or drink whenever they want and choose an alternative if they do not like the menu.
In discussions with the people living at Isis it was clear that they get the support they need to meet and talk with others involved in their care. People explained to us that staff always involve them in discussions and explain things to them and that they provide privacy if needed. This all helps to ensure people retain as much control over their lives and the support they receive as possible.
The people living at Isis told us that they feel safe living there. They know who to talk to if they have any complaints or concerns and are confident these would be addressed.
Isis is a small family type bungalow and people told us they like living there and are involved in choosing how it is decorated and furnished. However the kitchen is not adapted for use by people in a wheelchair.
The people living at Isis told us that they like the staff working there. They explained that when they are at home they always get support from staff when needed and that they always get support to go to health appointments. However they explained that they would like to go out and about more in their local community with staff support and this is often not possible. The said that they believe they need more staff available to support them to get out and about.