We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sidney Corob House 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 Sidney Corob House, you can give feedback on this service.
Sidney Corob House is a residential home providing care for up to 32 predominantly older people with enduring mental health conditions. The home caters specifically for people of the Jewish faith and there were 25 people living at the home at the time of this inspection. Each person had their own room and shared communal facilities provided people with ample space in different lounges and two dining areas, as well as in the garden.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Information sharing about the impact and changing guidance around management of COVID-19, including any times where people had tested positive, was well maintained. The provider had been engaging well with people using the service and relatives about changes to guidance throughout the pandemic.
Visitors to people were managed safely, including an essential care giver. The provider was aware of the government announcement regarding lifting restrictions that was announced the week before this visit took place. This demonstrated that the provider was keeping up to date with latest developments and guidance.
Sidney Corob House is a residential home providing care for up to 32 predominantly older people with enduring mental health conditions. The home caters specifically for people of the Jewish faith and there were 30 people living at the home at the time of this inspection. Each person had their own room and shared communal facilities provided people with ample space in different lounges and two dining areas, as well as in the garden.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were kept safe from harm and if any concerns about people’s wellbeing arose the service took all necessary steps to respond. Staff knew what they should do to minimise the risks that people faced but did not restrict people’s right to take reasonable risks.
The service understood people’s needs and planned their care well. The care provided was inclusive of people using the service and was planned with their involvement.
Staff were caring. This was evident from what people and relatives told us and the positive and considerate way in which all staff viewed and respected the people being cared for.
The service was exceptionally responsive to people’s needs. People were respected as individuals and were not expected to just “fit in” with what was convenient for the service. The service was mindful, sensitive and thoughtful to people’s wishes and aspirations and worked hard to meet people’s current and changing needs. People had been helped to make difficult decisions in their lives and to return to their lives in the community. A special project had been set up which resulted in people using the service producing a self-help book which was about to be publicised in community settings. A charter of rights had been written for and by people using the service and much attention had been focused on human rights, sexuality and supporting LGBT+ themes. A sensitive approach had been taken to end of life care. Electronic care planning had ben introduced with positive outcomes for people.
Management, both by the provider and at the service, was outstanding as the ethos of the service was forward thinking. The way in which the service operated was reviewed regularly with an emphasis placed on moving things forward and seeking innovative ways of maximising the involvement of people using the service as partners and not just recipients of care. A “Friends of Sidney Corob House” had been set up which raised funds for activities and equipment at the home. People had been supported to take part in community events including sharing Shabbat meals with people in the community. Staff were being supported with a development form. Reflective practice sessions and with enhanced training and supervision.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (Inspection report published on 17 March 2017). At this inspection
the service remained Good.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
This inspection was unannounced which meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming. The inspection took place on Monday 9 January 2017. Our previous comprehensive inspection on 8 December 2014 found that the service was compliant with all of the regulations we examined.
At the time of our inspection a manager was employed at the service. This person was awaiting their interview for registration with CQC. 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.
Risks assessments were in place and were regularly being reviewed. Risk assessments covered potential risks associated with people’s day to day support needs, mental healthcare support, other healthcare conditions and any risks associated with daily living and other activities. Staff were aware of how to mitigate risks and instructions were clear about actions to be taken to reduce risks and how to respond if new risks emerged.
The service was diligent with carrying out staff background checks and recruitment procedures to ensure that staff were properly vetted before commencing work at the service.
Staff supervision and training was effective, staff reported that they were supported and staff appraisals did take place. The service provider showed us their plan to undertake the next round of staff appraisals from March 2017.
There were policies, procedures and information available in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected. The service was applying the principles of the MCA appropriately. Physical restrictions under DoLS were not applicable for anyone at the service at the time of this inspection.
We found that people’s health care needs were assessed and the service had specific health care action plans to ensure that these assessments improved the range of potential health care needs of people. Care was planned and delivered in a consistent way and the service had regular contact with community mental health services and other health and social care professionals. Information and guidance was provided to staff about what was expected of them when supporting people and the procedures used at the service were clear.
The nine people using the service who spoke with us all said they were consulted and that their views were listened to. People were confident about approaching the manager and staff to talk about the things that they wished to and people felt that there was honesty in the way the service communicated with them.
The service complied with the provider’s procedures to carry out regular audits of all aspects of the service. The provider carried out regular reviews of the service and sought people’s feedback on how the service operated.
At this inspection we found that the service met all of the regulations we looked at.
Sidney Corob House is a residential home providing care for up to 32 predominantly older people with enduring mental health conditions. The home caters specifically for people of the Jewish faith.
There were 29 people using the service at the time of our inspection.
This inspection was unannounced which meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming. The inspection took place on Monday 8th December 2014. Our previous inspection on 11th December 2013 found that the service was compliant with all areas that we inspected.
At the time of our inspection a registered manager was employed at the service, although this person had been away for eight weeks and had been replaced by an acting 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.’
From our observations of interactions between staff and people using the service and from our conversations with a relative and health and social care professionals we found that people were usually satisfied with the service. People were confident about approaching the manager and staff to talk about the things that they wished to and people felt that there was openness in the way the service communicated with them.
We saw there were policies, procedures and information available in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected. We saw from the records we looked at that the service was applying these safeguards appropriately and making the necessary applications for assessments when these were required.
We found that people’s health care needs were assessed, and care was planned and delivered in a consistent way. People using the service had enduring long term mental health conditions and from the care plans we looked at we found that the information and guidance provided to staff was clear. Any risks associated with people’s care needs were assessed and plans were in place to minimise the risk as far as possible to keep people safe.
People were supported in ways that were most appropriate to their needs and known wishes. On the day we inspected we found that sufficient numbers of staff were available to meet people’s needs. When we looked at the staff rota we found this showed that suitable levels of staffing were also provided at other times of the day.
Staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to support people. They received training to enable them to understand people’s needs, to support people of the Jewish faith and to work in ways that were safe and protected people.
Social and daily activities provided suited people and met their individual needs. People’s preferences had been recorded and we saw that staff worked to ensure these preferences were respected.
People were able to complain or raise concerns if they needed to. We saw that where people had raised issues these were taken seriously and had been resolved appropriately. People could therefore feel confident that any concerns they had would be listened to. The provider also regularly reviewed the performance of the service to ensure that standards were maintained and improvements were made.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with one of the management staff at the service and from looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service responsive?
The manager who we spoke with said that there was close liaison between placing authorities and community mental health service. From a sample of records we looked at we found that this communication had occurred for the person who had contacted us as well as other people using the service.
The person who had made contact with us to raise concerns was unavailable to speak with us during our visit. We spoke with 5 other people who used the service. One person told us that 'I have lived here far too long.' When we asked the manager about this we were told that the person had lived at the home for a few years and was regularly asking to move into their own flat, which mental health services did not think was a possibility due to their support needs. Other people told us 'I used to live on my own, it was so lonely but I am not alone here', 'I have been here a year, it's all good so far' and 'I can't really say that anything is wrong, I just like being in my own room a lot.'
We observed that people were consulted about their likes and dislikes. Care was planned with people using the service to ensure their needs were understood and independence promoted. One person said ''I do everything, I do all my own laundry, I'm quite independent and even go out to the restaurant for meals sometimes.' We saw care files which showed that risk assessments balanced safety with the right of the person using the service to make choices taking into account their capacity to make those choices.
Medicines were stored and administered safely by staff trained in medicines management. We observed that people had their medicines at the times they needed them and in a safe way.
People's health and welfare needs were provided by sufficient numbers of staff with the right knowledge and experience.
There were systems in place for gathering, recording and evaluating information about the quality and safety of care provided.
Staff told us that the home had a 'very good team, we support each other and work together'. We spoke with the home's new activity co-ordinator who managed to involve more and more people in the various activities in the home. A scientist visited the home and talked about astronomy on the day of our visit.
We found that people's needs were assessed and care plans were created. The care plans and the related risk assessment were updated regularly. People were supported to attend medical appointments and their mental health reviews in order to meet people's needs as safely as possible.
People are involved in all aspects of their care and their social care needs are continuously being met.
We were told that people living at the home were aware of the complaints procedure and who to talk to if there was an issue.