You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 July 2016

This inspection took place on 13 April 2016 and was unannounced and was carried out by one inspector.

Crown House is a service that provides accommodation for up to 22 people. There were 22 people who used the service at this time. Care and support was provided to enable people to live an active life and as full a life as possible. People set their own goals and support was provided for people to achieve these.

The service is set on one level and has a lift and stairs for access from an entrance hall on the lower level. People who used the service told us that they were able to walk around the shops and visit friends as the service was in the centre of Oakham village with easy access to local services such as the library. People lived as independently as possible and actively used local amenities on a regular basis.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

.

People who used the service told us that they felt safe. Relatives also said that they had no worries about the safety of people or the service. Everyone we spoke with said that staff were very caring and treated people with dignity and respect, but at the same time, were considerate and compassionate.

People had easy access to local amenities and most people who used the service were in and out of the building during this inspection. We saw that staff greeted people with a smile and chatted about where the person had been and people were talking and happy to discuss their day. This was confirmed during our discussions with people.

Staff expressed a robust awareness of how to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. They also felt more than comfortable speaking openly to staff and management about any concerns.

Staff had the necessary training and skills to provide them with the knowledge to support people appropriately. We reviewed the training programme that ensured that basic training was completed by all new staff and then further refresher training was regularly updated. Staff confirmed that they had a programme of on-going training that updated their skills. An induction programme was in place for all new staff that were employed at the service.

Relatives said that they knew they could bring any concerns to members of staff, who would deal appropriately and immediately with these.

Healthcare professionals were contacted when this was needed and any instructions were recorded and monitored. Care plans had details of a person's individual support needs, these were reviewed regularly. This was confirmed by our discussions with people who lived at the service and also through our review of records.

All staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) 2008. Our observations and review of records showed that people were encouraged to make independent decisions and choices. People who lived at the service confirmed that staff asked before any support was provided and that they spent their day as they wanted.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. This included regular discussions with people who used the service. The provider regularly issued questionnaires to gather the opinions and thoughts of individuals, the results were then collated and discussed with the staff team.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 2 July 2016

The service was safe.

People told us that they felt safe and that staff did listen to them if they had any concerns.

Staff recognised and knew how to deal with abuse. The provider had effective recruitment procedures and enough staff were deployed.

Staff had been trained regarding the safe and appropriate way to store and administer medicines. They handled medicines in the appropriate way.

People were supported and encouraged to make independent choices. Risk assessments were completed to support the safety of people.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 July 2016

The service was effective.

The staff team were trained to have the skills and knowledge they needed to support and care for people.

People were supported to access healthcare professionals

whenever this was necessary.

People told us that they chose and enjoyed their meals. Staff made the eating experience as enjoyable as possible.

Staff had training on the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and of the principles of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) 2008 and this training was put into practice.

Caring

Good

Updated 2 July 2016

The service was caring.

People told us that they were treated with consideration and respect at all times. Their privacy and dignity were supported.

People were encouraged to be fully involved in making decisions about their daily lives and any support that they received.

We saw that staff treated people with consideration and provided choices for people.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 July 2016

The service was responsive.

People's individual preferences had been assessed and were updated as needed. Care plans contained clear information about people's goals and choices.

There were regular activities planned both in the service and the local community.

The provider had a complaints procedure that was accessible to people.

Feedback forms were regularly issued to gain opinions of the service that was provided.

Well-led

Good

Updated 2 July 2016

The service was well led.

Staff were encouraged to give their suggestions about the development of the service. They were also able to ask for additional training that they felt was relevant to their role.

The quality of the service and the premises were regularly audited and any actions required were completed to address any areas that required improvement.