You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 3 October 2017

During a routine inspection

The Mews is a care home for people with learning disabilities. It can accommodate up to eight people in single occupancy self-contained flats. The service aims to prepare people to move onto support living. The service is situated in the centre of Bramley, close to local shops, amenities and public transport.

We inspected the home on 4 October 2017 and the visit was unannounced. The home was previously inspected in August 2015 when we rated it as ‘Good’. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘The Mews’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was also a general manager who was responsible for co-ordinating the daily support provided at the location.

All of the people we spoke with who lived at The Mews spoke positively about their experiences living at the home and the support they received.

Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding people from abuse and protecting their rights. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible, while staff took into consideration their wishes, and any risks associated with supporting them. Support plans and risk assessments were robust and internal systems were in place to enable the management team to get a clear overview of potential risks to people, so these could be managed effectively.

People received inclusive, caring and mindful support from staff who knew them well and whose main aim was to support people to have the kind of life they wanted, while keeping them as safe as possible. People were supported by a core team of staff which was led by their keyworker.

Care files provided detailed up to date information about the areas people needed support in and reflected their preferences, these enabled staff to provide care and support that was tailored to their individual needs. People discussed their support plans regularly with their keyworker to make sure they were happy with the planned support.

People received their medications in a safe and timely way from staff who had been trained to carry out this role.

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 support this practice.

Staff were recruited robustly. They had undertaken a structured induction and essential training at the beginning of their employment. This had been followed by periodic refresher training and on-going support sessions.

People were fully involved in shopping for their chosen meals, which were prepared in their flat either by themselves or with assistance from staff.

People had access to social activities that were based around their interests and hobbies. They told us they enjoyed the activities and outings they took part in.

People had access to the registered provider’s complaint policy, which clearly told them how to raise concerns. This was also available in an easy to read version that used pictures to help people understand the process. No-one we spoke with raised any complaints or concerns.

There was a formal quality assurance process in place. This meant that the service was monitored to make sure good care was provided, and planned improvements and changes could be implemented in a timely manner.

Inspection carried out on 25 August & 2 September 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 25 August and 2 September 2015 and was announced on the first day. The home was previously inspected in October 2013 and the service was meeting the regulations we looked at.

The Mews is a care home for people with learning disabilities. It can accommodate up to eight people. It comprises of eight self-contained flats, the service prepares people to move on to supported living. The service is situated in Bramley, close to Rotherham. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living at the service.

The home had 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was registered at three locations and there was a general manager at this service who also had management responsibilities.

People who used the service and their relatives we spoke with told us the service provided excellent care and support. They told us they felt safe, the staff were caring, considerate and respected their choices and decisions.

Medicines were stored safely and procedures were in place to ensure medicines were administered safely.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The staff we spoke with had knowledge of this and said they would speak to the managers for further advice.

People were involved in menu planning, shopping and meal preparation. People who used the service had their food in their individual flats and there was plenty of choice and snacks available. People had access to drinks as they wanted them.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and spoke to people with understanding, warmth and respect.

People’s needs had been identified, and from our observations, we found people’s needs were met by staff who knew them well. Care records we saw detailed people’s needs and were regularly reviewed.

There was a robust recruitment system and all staff had completed an induction. Staff had received formal supervision and annual appraisals of their work performance.

There were systems in place for monitoring quality, which were effective. Where improvements were needed, these were addressed and followed up to ensure continuous improvement.

The registered manager and general manager were aware of how to respond to complaints. Information on how to report complaints was clearly displayed in the service. People we spoke with did not raise any complaints or concerns about the service. Staff and people who used the service who we spoke with told us that all staff were approachable, the general manager operated an open door policy and the service was well led.

Inspection carried out on 17, 18 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We had been notified that the registered manager had resigned. At our inspection the deputy manager was overseeing the service with support from another registered manager. Staff told us they felt supported with this arrangement, people who received a service also told us that they got on well with the registered manager from another service and felt able to talk to them and raise any concerns or questions. The deputy manager said, �We have a good working relationship and the service is benefiting from this.�

People we spoke with told us they liked living at the service. They told us the staff were good and looked after them. One person told us, �I like the staff and the managers I can talk to everyone.�

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

We found that the environment was well maintained in a clean and hygienic condition. We also found systems were in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

We found there was an effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Staff received appropriate professional development.

There was an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service; this had not always been followed. However we found that with the new management cover arrangements in place the systems were again being implemented and followed.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)