You are here

Preston Private Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 30 June 2014
Date of Publication: 9 August 2014
Inspection Report published 09 August 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 30 June 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask: -

� Is the service safe?

� Is the service effective?

� Is the service caring?

� Is the service responsive?

� Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records. The inspection team consisted of three inspectors, a specialist advisor and an expert by experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with told us they felt safe living at Preston Private. Staff spoken with had an understanding of the procedures in place to safeguard vulnerable people from abuse and had received training on this subject. This meant staff knew how to recognise and respond if they witnessed or suspected abusive practice.

We found the location to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Policies and procedures were in place and training had been provided to guide staff in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. However we found assessments of people�s capacity to support best interest decisions and their advanced wishes was not always in line with best practice.

Staffing levels were continually assessed and monitored to ensure there was sufficient staff available to meet the needs of people who lived at the home. However from our observations and from what people told us during the inspection visit, there was not enough staff to meet the needs of people who lived at the home.

Is the service effective?

People were encouraged and supported to express their views about how they wanted their support delivered. This started before the person moved into Preston Private. The staff team worked with the person to plan, communicate and develop relationships so that everything about them, their needs and desires were understood.

People discussed their healthcare needs as part of the care planning process and we noted there was guidance for staff on how best to meet people�s health needs. However we did not find this in all cases. This meant staff were not always aware of people�s medical conditions and may not know to respond if there were any signs of deterioration in the person�s physical or mental health.

Staff had the training and support to meet the individual and diverse needs of the people they supported.

Is the service caring?

We found staff to be caring and compassionate to people who lived at the home treating them with respect. People confirmed to us that staff were caring and told us they were happy with the care and support provided.

Care records we looked at showed people's needs were assessed. We saw evidence that people's needs were assessed before they started to use the service. This ensured staff had the required skills and training to meet people's needs. Assessments included aspects of the person's health, personal and social care needs.

During the morning we observed at times there was limited staff interaction with people who lived at the home. However in the afternoon we saw an activities co-ordinator actively engaging people in a programme of activities. There was also a 1940�s singing group entertaining people on one of the units. We saw people responded positively to this. There was a notice board with information of forth coming events and activities planned.

Is the service responsive?

We observed staff being responsive and attentive to people who required support. This confirmed people who required care and support were being treated with respect and dignity.

People�s needs were assessed prior to their admission to the home. Records showed people and their family members had been involved in making decisions about what was important to them. Each person had a key worker who liaised closely with them and their family members. People�s care needs were kept under review and staff responded quickly when people�s needs changed.

The management and staff at the home worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a consistent way. This demonstrated the service had an open and co-ordinated approach in ensuring people received the support they needed.

Is the service well-led?

The provider had policies and procedures in place to monitor the quality of the service. These included seeking the views of the people they supported by way of surveys, care reviews and regular monitoring. We saw copies of surveys completed by the people being supported. This meant that people who lived at the home and their family members had the opportunity to give their views about how the service was run.

Records reviewed showed that the service had a range of quality assurance systems in place, to help determine the quality of the service offered. During our inspection there were a number of concerns we had in respect of capacity assessments, record keeping and staffing levels. Through the quality systems, the registered manager had identified a number of the concerns and had actions in place to address them.