Archived: Kadima Support UK Limited No 300

Updated 24 December 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 11 October 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team comprised of one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also looked at information CQC held about the service. This included previous inspection reports and notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

During the visit, we spoke with the registered manager and two members of staff, one of whom worked for an agency, but who worked on a regular basis at the service.

We checked medicines storage and records related to medicines. We looked at care records for two people using the service. We talked with three people living at the service.

We looked around the premises including looking at one bedroom occupied by a person living at the service. We looked at records relating to the management of money, medicines and maintenance of the service. We looked at training records for three members of staff and supervision records for five members of staff. We also looked at the recruitment process for two members of staff.

After the visit we spoke with one relative of people who used the service and three health and social care professionals.

Updated 24 December 2016

We inspected this service on 11 October 2016. The inspection was unannounced. Kadima Support UK Limited No 300 is a care home registered for a maximum of seven adults who have mental health and additional complex needs. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living at the service.

The service is located in a large terraced house with access to a back garden.

There is no inspection history for this service as a new provider took over the running of the service in October 2014.

At the time of the inspection 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Medicines were administered safely but the temperature for storage was not routinely recorded. This was of concern as the efficacy for some medicines is reduced if they are stored outside of the specified storage temperature range. We also noted a discrepancy between stocks and records for one person living at the service.

Management of money for one person was not effective so they were at risk of abuse.

During the inspection we witnessed staff managing people in a calm and supportive way even when people were at times quite agitated and verbally challenging to them. People using the service informed us they were mostly satisfied with the care and services provided.

Staff had been carefully recruited and we could see that regular supervision took place with the majority of staff. Staff told us they felt supported and management support was available.

The service was clean throughout and we noted that the majority of food was stored and labelled safely in the fridges in the kitchen. People’s nutritional needs were met and people chose what was on the menu.

We reviewed risk assessments and care plans for people using the service. These were comprehensive and provided guidance to staff in caring for people living at the service.

With the exception of one person, people went out to social activities and hobbies independently. One person needed support to leave the premises and they had a limited activities programme. Staffing levels were under review at the time of the inspection.

Senior managers undertook quality assurance audits on a three monthly basis. There were quality monitoring systems in place, although not all of these were effective or taking place in line with the service’s procedures at the time of the inspection.

There was a record of essential inspections and maintenance carried out on the premises.

We identified a breach of regulations in relation to medicines management, management of people’s money and the governance of the service.

We have made a recommendation in relation to the recording of training for staff.