Archived: Gardeners Close

Updated 23 March 2017

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 14 February 2017 and was unannounced. It was carried out by two inspectors

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. Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service, we looked at the PIR, the previous inspection reports and any notifications received by the Care Quality Commission. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

We spoke with the provider, the deputy manager and one member of staff. We looked at three people’s care plans and the associated risk assessments and guidance. We looked at a range of other records including two staff recruitment files, the staff induction records, training and supervision schedules, staff rotas and quality assurance surveys and audits.

We spoke with all of the people living at the service and they showed us their individual flats. We observed how people were supported and the activities they were engaged in.

We last inspected this service in October 2015. Breaches in the regulations were identified at this inspection which had now been met.

Updated 23 March 2017

This inspection was carried out on the 14 February 2017 and was unannounced.

Gardeners Close is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for three people. The service consisted of three self-contained flats and each person had their own bedroom, kitchen and bathroom.

The provider told us they were in day to day charge of running of the service. The provider is a registered person. 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 carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 21 January 2016 and Gardeners Close was rated ‘Requires Improvement’. We issued requirement notices relating to safe care and treatment, fit and proper persons employed and good governance. We asked the provider to take action and the provider sent us an action plan. The provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches. We undertook this inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. Improvements had been made and the provider had complied with the breaches. The service was now compliant with all regulations.

Staff were not present at the service 24 hours a day and staff from the provider’s other service, on the same site, ‘popped in’ at evenings and weekends to see if people needed any additional support. People told us that staff were there when they needed them, however, there was no formal method of recording when staff visited the service. We discussed this with the provider and they agreed this was an area for improvement. Staff were checked before they started working with people to ensure they were of good character and had the necessary skills and experience to support people effectively.

The ethos and values of the service were to encourage people to be as independent as possible, and people were learning new skills such as cleaning their flats and doing their own washing. However, the goals that people were working towards had not been recorded and agreed, to ensure everyone knew what each person was working towards. We discussed this with the provider and they agreed that this would be beneficial to ensure people received consistent support.

There were now regular checks and audits occurring at service. However, the deputy manager had not identified an error relating to a person’s weight chart. One person’s records showed they had lost 11.2kg in less than a month. Staff showed us that the scales were broken, and the person’s weight was stable but this had not been recorded or acted on to ensure the scales were working correctly and the person’s weight was healthy.

People were supported to prepare and cook their own meals in their individual flats. If people chose not to cook they were able to eat food prepared at the provider’s other service on the same site. People were supported to choose food in line with their special diets when needed and one person had lost weight since moving to the service. They were healthier and more mobile as a result. People’s health needs were supported.

People’s medicines were stored in their individual flats and staff supported them to take these medicines safely. Risks relating to people’s health and mobility had been assessed and minimised where possible. Regular health and safety checks were undertaken to ensure the environment was safe and equipment worked as required. Regular fire drills were completed.

Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse. The provider and deputy manager were aware of their responsibilities regarding safeguarding and staff were confident the management team would act if any concerns were reported to them.

Staff had the induction and training needed to carry out their roles. They had received training in topics relating to people’s needs, such as diabetes. Staff met regularly with the deputy manager to discuss their training and development needs.

Staff had an understanding of The Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were encouraged to make decisions about their lives and were able to come and go as they pleased. CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. These safeguards protect the rights of people using services by ensuring that if there are any restrictions to their freedom and liberty, these have been agreed by the local authority as being required to protect the person from harm. The provider had not made any DoLS applications as none were needed.

People told us that staff were kind and caring and gave them the support they needed. Staff respected people’s privacy, they knocked on the doors of people’s flats and waited to be invited in before entering.

People were able to participate in a range of activities at the provider’s other service on the same site, however, people told us they preferred to spend time in their individual flats with their friends. On the day of the inspection one person had been out for a walk in the local village and another person was going out that evening.

People told us that the provider was a visible presence at the service, people approached them and the deputy manager throughout the inspection. The CQC had been informed of any important events that occurred at the service, in line with current legislation.

People’s relatives, staff and other stakeholders were regularly surveyed to gain their thoughts on the service. There was a complaints policy in place and people told us they knew how to complain if needed.