You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 September 2018

This inspection took place on the 13 July 2018 and was unannounced.

Rawleigh House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Rawleigh House is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to six people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the home.

The service had not had a registered manager in place since 08 January 2018. However, there was a new manager in position who had applied to the Care Quality Commission to become the registered manager of the service.

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.

At the last inspection carried out in September and October 2017 we found concerns relating to the care and support people received. We asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do, and by when to improve the key questions safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led. We found during this inspection the action plan had been followed and improvements had been made.

Following the last inspection improvements had been learnt in regards the culture of the service. The manager informed us improved systems and process ensured people were protected from harm or abuse. They ensured staff received the appropriate mentoring and support to ensure safe practice was in place, which ensured there was an open culture.

Improvements had been made to people's welfare and safety. The provider had taken action to ensure quality monitoring systems were in place with greater emphasis on whistle blowing, safeguarding and training. Safeguarding alerts were being managed and lessons learnt by the home. Professionals confirmed that improvements had been made. Staff were able to tell us how they would feel confident to report safeguarding concerns, where previously they had not. Staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults.

People, staff and relatives told us the culture of the home had improved and changed for the better. They all felt the home was now well-led. One member of staff told us, “I used to feel intimidated, and we could not express our opinions, whereas now with the new manager it is so easy to talk and share our thoughts.”

Improvement had been made to ensure systems were in place to assess, monitor, manage and mitigate risk. Risk assessments were in place which identified risks and listed measures in place to minimise risk to people. People, relatives, health professionals and staff told us that the service was safe.

Improvement had been made in regards to people’s right to be treated with dignity and respect. Staff demonstrated that they knew, understood and responded to each person’s diverse needs in a caring and compassionate way. When staff discussed people's care needs they did so in a confidential manner.

People, their relatives and professionals told us that staff were caring. We observed positive interactions between staff, managers and people. This showed us that people felt comfortable with the staff supporting them. We asked one person if staff were kind, they said, “Yes staff are nice.”

People their relatives and friends had opportunities to feedback in regard their care by way of a complaints procedure and suggestion box. Where complaints and suggestions had been made the provider had acted upon them.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act and training records showed that they had received training in this. Improvements had been made in relation to the completion and assessment

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 September 2018

The service was safe

There were sufficient staff available to meet people's assessed care and support needs.

Staff had completed safeguarding adults training and were able to tell us how they would recognise and report abuse.

Medicines were managed safely, securely stored, correctly recorded and only administered by staff that were trained and competent to give medicines.

Lessons were learnt and improvements were made when things went wrong

Effective

Good

Updated 5 September 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported to eat and drink enough and dietary needs were met.

The service was acting in line with the requirements of the MCA.

Staff received training and supervision to give them the skills they needed to carry out their roles.

Staff were supported and given opportunities for additional training and personal development.

The service worked within and across other healthcare services to deliver effective care.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 September 2018

The service was caring

People were supported by staff that treated them with kindness, respect and compassion.

Staff had a good understanding of the people they cared for and supported them in decisions about how they liked to live their

lives.

People were supported by staff who respected their privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 September 2018

The service was responsive

People were supported by staff that used person centred approaches to deliver the care and support they required.

People were supported to access the community and take part in activities within the home.

There was a system in place to manage complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 September 2018

The service was well led

There had not been a registered manager in post for a long period of time. However there was a manager in position who was awaiting an interview in regard their registration to become the registered manager.

Quality monitoring systems were in place which ensured the management had a good oversight of service delivery.

The home was led by a management team that was approachable and respected by the people, relatives and staff.

The home was continuously working to learn, improve and measure the delivery of care to people.

Staff received feedback from the management and felt valued for their work. They felt there was an open door policy and open and honest approach by the management team.