We carried out a review of the data available to us about Pershore Short Term Breaks on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Pershore Short Term Breaks, you can give feedback on this service.
Pershore Short Term Breaks offers accommodation for up to four people with learning disabilities and sensory impairments. The home offers short term accommodation to people with complex health needs, so relatives and carers are supported in their caring roles. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Nineteen people used the respite service at the time of our inspection visit.
There was a registered manager in post at 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 in December 2015 the service was rated as Good. At this inspection we found the quality of care had been maintained and people continued to receive a service that was well led, providing safe, caring, effective and responsive care and support that met their needs. The rating remains 'Good'.
There were enough skilled and knowledgeable staff to meet people’s needs and provide effective care. Staff felt they had good training. Staff were supervised and supported in their roles. People were assisted to access health services when needed and staff worked well with other health and social care professionals.
People had a comprehensive assessment of their health and social care needs before they used the service. Care plans contained detailed information to enable people to receive appropriate care and support that was responsive to their needs. People’s care needs were regularly reviewed. The registered manager and the provider were in regular contact with people, or their relatives, to check the care provided was what people needed and expected.
Staff were caring and people were treated with dignity and respect.
Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and harm. There were procedures to keep people safe and manage identified risks to people’s care.
Where medicines were administered staff were trained and assessed as competent to do so safely. The provider had a recruitment process that had suitable checks in place to ensure that prior to staff starting work they were suitable to support people who used the service.
The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) were followed by the registered manager and staff. People’s decisions and choices were respected and people felt involved in their care. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff sought permission before assisting them.
There were governance systems in place that provided the registered manager with an overview of areas such as care records, medicine records and call times.
A registered manager was 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
We saw people got on well with the registered manager and staff supporting them. Relatives told us their family members liked the staff who cared for them and enjoyed staying at the home. People’s privacy and dignity were respected by staff. Staff supported people to make their own choices and to do the things they enjoyed. Staff knew how to communicate with people effectively and provide reassurance to people when they needed it. The registered manager and staff shared information with families so that people’s their well-being was maintained. Staff knew how to support people so they were as independent as possible and made sure people had the equipment they needed to promote their independence. Staff had received training in managing people’s medicines and senior staff undertook checks to make sure people received the correct medicines.
People received care and support from staff who understood and responded to people’s individual needs. Staff recognised when people’s needs changed and responded to changes, so people were cared for in the best way for them. Staff knew about people’s preferences and the things people liked to do.
Staff were supported through regular supervision and training. New staff members received a programme of induction, so they could support people effectively. Staff told us they were able to provide safe and compassionate care as they were supported by the registered manager and senior staff. People’s consent was appropriately obtained by staff. Staff worked with other organisations to make sure they were protecting people’s freedom and rights to make decisions themselves.
People were cared for by staff who knew their dietary needs. Relatives told us that people were encouraged to eat enough so they remained well. If people became ill when staying at the home, staff supported people to see health professionals so people’s health needs were met and they remained well.
Relatives told us that the registered manager and staff were caring. Relatives contributed to their family member’s assessments and care reviews, so they received the care which was right for them. The provider and registered manager undertook checks on the quality of the care provided and took steps to develop the care offered to people further. Relatives representing people who lived at the home and staff told us the registered manager was open and welcomed suggestions to develop the services provided to people further.
We looked at care plans for four of the people who used the service. They covered a range of needs and had been reviewed regularly to ensure that staff had up to date information. There were also detailed assessments about the person's health so that staff could support people to keep healthy and well. All the staff we spoke with had knowledge of the needs of the people who lived there.
We saw that staff helped and supported people. All the relatives and carers we spoke with were positive about their experiences of the service. We spoke with one relative of a person who used the service. One relative told us that staff: 'Exude loving care'. Another relative said: 'You could not ask for better in the way of staff and care'. We saw that people received care that met their individual needs.
We found that medicines were being appropriately stored and administered.
We saw that the provider had acted appropriately to any complaints that had been raised.
We saw that staff cared for people well and that they had a good understanding of people's individual needs and personal preferences. Care plans had been recorded for each person which detailed the care needed to be given by staff. The information staff gave us about the people they cared for matched the information we saw in people's care plans.
We found that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. There were robust recruitment systems in place to ensure that suitable staff had been employed to care for people who used the service.
We found that the provider had audit systems in place to enable them to monitor the quality of the service provided.
We observed how the care workers communicated with people who used the service. The service had ensured that they had used the information supplied by the local authority social services department or from relatives and carers of the people that used the service. Care workers observed and recorded the reactions of people to ensure they had input into their care and treatment.
We saw that care workers communicated well to ensure they were aware of where people had been or going. They were respectful of people and where appropriate included people in general conversations.
The registered manager demonstrated that they had employed the use of other professionals to improve outcomes for one person that had used the service.