The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: City Breaks

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2 Bowley Close, London, SE19 1SZ (020) 8670 6031

Provided and run by:
The Brandon Trust

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

21 March 2017

During a routine inspection

City Breaks provides a respite service for people with a learning disability and people with an autistic spectrum disorder. City Breaks can accommodate up to four people at one time.

This unannounced inspection took place on 21 March 2017. At the time of our inspection three people were using the service. At our inspection of the service on 29 July 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection they remained rated as Good.

The manager in post had not registered with us as the 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.

There were enough staff on shift to safely support people. Staff told us they could request for additional staff to support people if required. Staff managed people’s medicines in a safe way. This included the way they administered, stored and disposed of medicines.

Staff understood how to respond if they suspected people were being abused to keep them safe and had received training in safeguarding adults. There were assessments of risks and management plans in place to guide staff on how to prevent and reduce avoidable harm to people.

Staff continued to be well supported in their roles to be effective. They received regular training, supervision and were appraised annually. Staff demonstrated they had the skills and knowledge to support people. Staff understood their responsibility under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They supported people to make decisions appropriately and promoted their rights. Staff supported people to access the health and social care services they required to maintain their health and wellbeing.

People enjoyed the food and drink they received and were provided with food and drink of their choice and preference. People had access to food and drink throughout the day.

Staff knew the people they supported including how to respond when they became anxious or presented behaviours which challenged the service. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. Staff encouraged and supported people to maintain relationships important to them. They also supported people to find love and friendships. Staff communicated with people in the way they understood.

People’s individual care needs had been assessed and their support planned and delivered in accordance with their wishes. People’s needs and preferences were reviewed and updated each time they came to use the service to ensure their needs could be met by the service.

People were encouraged to follow their interests and develop daily living skills. People took part in a range of activities within and outside the service. People were allowed to go out as they wished. Staff promoted people’s independence in the way they supported them.

There was a complaints procedure in place which was accessible to people. People told us they knew how to complain if they were unsatisfied with the service. The provider had a range of audits in place to assess, monitor and improve the service. The manager involved people and staff in the running of the service. The provider was meeting their statutory responsibility to submit notifications to the CQC.

29 July 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 17 March 2015. A breach of a legal requirement was found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the legal requirement in relation to supporting staff.

We undertook this focused inspection on 29 July 2015 to check that they had followed their plan and to check that they now met the legal requirement inspected. This report only covers our findings in relation to that requirement. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for City Breaks on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

At our previous inspection we found that staff were not up to date with their mandatory training and had not received an annual appraisal.

Since our previous comprehensive inspection staff had completed their mandatory training and were supported to attend additional training courses in health and social care. The team leaders had received an annual appraisal and the rest of the team had their appraisal scheduled.

17 March 2015

During a routine inspection

City Breaks provides a respite service for people with learning disabilities and people with autistic spectrum disorder. City Breaks can accommodate up to four people at one time. City Breaks moved location in June 2014 to a newly refurbished service within the London Borough of Southwark. City Breaks is situated on the ground floor, however, they are unable to accept people with severe physical disabilities because they do not have the equipment and facilities to provide care safely.

We undertook this unannounced inspection on 17 March 2015. At the time of our inspection one person was using the service. This was the first inspection of the service at this address. At our inspection of the service at their previous address on 12 November 2013 the service was meeting the regulations inspected.

In January 2015 the registered manager left 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 time of our inspection an interim manager was in post providing support to the service whilst recruitment of a permanent manager took place.

We found that a personalised service was delivered that met people’s needs. People were consulted before their stay about their support needs and what they wanted to do while at the service. The service was delivered in line with people’s preferences outlined during this initial discussion. People were encouraged to maintain their independence, and staff supported them to develop new skills.

People’s privacy was respected and people were supported to maintain their dignity whilst at the service. We observed staff speaking to people in a polite manner, and staff were knowledgeable about people’s preferred method of communication.

The service focussed on the delivery of activities, and staff supported people to follow the activities they wished to at the service and in the community. People were supported to undertake leisure activities, go sightseeing, and go shopping.

Staff were aware of any risks to people’s safety, and supported people as required to ensure their welfare whilst at the service and in the community. Staff supported people in response to any incidents that occurred to ensure their welfare and minimise the risk of the incident reoccurring.

Staff were aware of safeguarding adults procedures. They escalated any concerns as required to their manager and the person’s social worker to ensure they got the support they needed to maintain their safety.

Staff were supported by their manager, and there was good leadership at the service. Staff felt their views and opinions were listened to, and there was a commitment to continue to improve the quality of service provision. Checks were undertaken regularly to review service delivery and any areas identified as requiring improvement were addressed.

Staff received regular supervision from their manager. However, we identified that staff were not up to date with the training the provider required them to complete and staff had not received an annual appraisal. This meant there was a risk that staff did not have up to date information about how to provide people with safe and appropriate care.

We found the service was in breach of the regulation relating to the support provided to staff through completion of training and appraisals. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.