Archived: Venmore Community Centre

The service was last inspected on 03 January 2014 and was found to be compliant with all the regulations we assessed at that time.

Venmore Community Care Centre is a purpose built building with accommodation for twenty five people over three floors. It provides short term intermediate care, reablement and rehabilitation care, to people over 18 years old, who are resident within the Liverpool borough or registered with a Liverpool GP practice. Venmore aims to provide an environment in which people can maximise their independence in all aspects of daily living.

At the time of the inspection the service 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.’

We saw the service was clean and had appropriate infection control processes in place.

All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe. The service had up to date safeguarding policies and procedures in place, with guidance on how to report any safeguarding concerns to the local authority. Staff were trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and had a good knowledge of how to identify and report any safeguarding or whistleblowing concerns.

Both the registered manager and staff we spoke to had knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is used when someone needs to be deprived of their liberty in their own best interest. No one at the service was currently under the DoLS framework.

Robust recruitment checks were in place to ensure staff working at the service had met the required standards. This included everyone having a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, full documented work history and three references on file. The majority of staff working at the service had been employed by the council for a number of years, working across services.

We saw that medicines were managed and administered appropriately. We saw the service had systems in place for the safe storage, administration and recording of medicines. We saw that staff who gave out medicines had their competency assessed before being able to do so and regular medicines audits were carried out. Each floor of the service had its own medication room and mediation trolley, and the team organiser allocated to each floor was responsible for administering medication. This meant the process was completed promptly and effectively.

Staff reported they received a good level of training to carry out their role, with refresher sessions and other training courses provided to ensure skills and knowledge were up to date. Staff were also able to request specialist training in specific areas, with bespoke sessions being created to meet this need.

Staff also told us they felt supported through completion of regular supervision meetings and team meetings both as a full staff group and also with the smaller teams on each floor.

Throughout the inspection we observed positive and appropriate interactions between the staff and people who used the service. Staff were seen to be caring and treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. The feedback we received from both people who used the service and their relatives was complimentary about the standard of care provided.

We looked at six care files, which contained detailed information about the people who used the service and what they wanted to achieve during their time at the service. Each file also contained detailed care plans and risk assessments, which helped ensure their needs were being met and their safety was maintained.

The service had positive links and displayed effective partnership working with a number of professionals. Social workers, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists, GP’s and district nurses all had regular input and involvement with the service and spoke highly of the professionalism displayed.

The service had a range of systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. These included audits of medication, care plans and the environment, along with overall audit of service delivery by the area manager. We saw evidence of action plans being drawn up and implemented to address any issues found.

Everyone we spoke to felt that the service was well run and managed. The registered manager and team organisers were reported to be approachable and helpful and each staff member told us they loved their jobs and enjoyed working at the service.

We found during this inspection that improvements had been made to the systems used to assess and manage risks relating to the welfare and safety of service users. A twice daily check of the building had been introduced to ensure all areas were safe and hazard free.

We also found that systems were in place to monitor the service provided to people and to obtain their views.

People who used the service told us: 'The staff are brilliant, they are very caring and always ask for my views.'

We found that there was no quality monitoring process in place whereby senior staff carried out formal regular observations of the environment. This meant that some areas of the premises which needed attention had not been identified and actioned in a timely manner, thus increasing the risk to people's health, safety and welfare.

We found people had been supported to make decisions regarding the care and support they had received. We also found that people had received the support they needed with their health, personal care and rehabilitation.

People told us that they had felt safe staying at the service and would have felt confident to raise any concerns they had with staff. We found systems were in place for reporting and dealing with any complaints or potential safeguarding adults issues that had arisen.

People told us they liked and had confidence in the staff team. We found staff had not all had recent training and support to equip them with the knowledge they may need to meet people's care and welfare needs safely.

Systems in place for quality assuring the service were ineffective. We found that audits had not been carried out and reviewed regularly and had not been effective in noting and addressing issues around staff training and supervision.

The people staying at Venmore Community Centre told us that they had received the care and support they had needed to support them with their rehabilitation. Their comments included, 'It's like a holiday, I would recommend it without a doubt' and 'They help us to get back on our feet'

We found during our visit that people had been treated with respect and involved in the planning of their care. The people staying there confirmed this with one person explaining, 'Nothing is too much trouble, they will do anything to help'.

We found that staff had not received the training and formal supervision needed to ensure they had up to date knowledge in how to support people safely and well. We also found that systems in place for ensuring staff had up to date knowledge around safeguarding adults procedures were not sufficiently robust.