Archived: Frank House

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking the staff supporting people and from looking at records. On this occasion we were unable to speak with the relevant service user as they were unavailable.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The provider had consulted with the person whose care plan we looked at, and with their health care professionals, to draw up risk assessments to ensure the person was safe in their home and in the community.

Is the service responsive?

People's care assessments and support plans were in place and were reviewed and changed when necessary in response to changing needs. For example one person's care plan and risk assessments we saw had been drawn up in consultation with the person and included consideration of their physical and mental health support needs, and social care needs.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, and the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Staff were aware of the importance of consent and people were asked for their consent before care was provided. People's needs were assessed and risk assessments were carried out before care was provided. These were regularly reviewed so that staff were aware of the best way to provide support.

The manager and area manager were available on a daily basis to oversee the staff, and monitor that people were being safely supported, for example with personal care and when travelling out in the community. Health care professionals and social services were involved in people's care planning and in responding to people's concerns when needed.

There were arrangements in place to deal with emergencies and to make sure people were safe. People's health needs were included in their care planning to ensure they were healthy. Fire safety equipment and procedures were in place to ensure people would be kept safe in the event of a fire. The staff and manager had appropriate training to safely support people, for example they were trained in protecting people from neglect or abuse and people told us they felt safe in their home.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with three people who used the service and observed staff working with people. People told us that the staff and manager were very caring and supportive. We saw that staff always took the time to stop and speak with people and spoke with them in a manner they best understood. One person said: 'the staff are always helpful and respectful and they make living here easy for me," and 'they are good at helping me to do things for myself.'

Is the service effective?

We saw from three people's records we looked at that people's needs were assessed and in most cases a care plan was drawn up to meet those needs. However one person had not had a complete written care plan in place to describe the support they needed, including how staff should provide for mental health support needs. The person and their family told us they had been asked about their care needs but were not aware of a care plan.

Three people told us they were happy with the care provided. Regular reviews were made of the care plan and people told us they were involved in their reviews. There were suitable policies in place for consent to care, protecting people and keeping them safe, training, monitoring that people received good quality care and responding to complaints. All of the four people we spoke with, and one family member told us that the home provided them with care that met their needs, and they were happy living there. For example one person said: "the staff know how to support me and I am happy here', and another person said: 'the manager and staff look after me well'.

People who used the service were consulted for their views on a regular basis, which involved the person, their family or advocate and social services. Any changes they requested were included in a revised care plan.

Staff were experienced in supporting people with learning disabilities and used effective systems to communicate with people, such as including pictures in choices of food and activities and to ensure people knew familiar staff were scheduled to support them.

Is the service responsive?

People we spoke with who used the service told us that the staff and manager always listened to their concerns, and did something to help sort out any problems they were experiencing. People were provided with a range of enjoyable activities and changes were made when necessary to try out new activities.

People's support plans were reviewed and changed when necessary in response to changing needs, for example in helping people to become more independent in managing their medication and being involved in shopping and cooking. People told us they had interesting activities, and that the staff listened when they wanted to do something different.

Staff said they felt able to raise issues of concern with the management, but also said they felt that sometimes communications related to care issues could be improved. For example we were told that sometimes action had not been taken quickly when needs improvements had been identified, such as getting written guidance in place for supporting a person's mental health care needs.

Is the service well led?

The manager had started working at the home within the previous six months, and confirmed that they had submitted an application to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to become the registered manager. They were involved in direct care and worked with all the staff five days a week. Two staff we spoke with told us that they felt the home was well managed, and that they received direction and training to allow them to support people at the home. Regular staff meetings were held to discuss people's support needs, but we found that one to one supervision with staff had not been happening as often as they should, but the manager had now started to do these regularly again.

People who used the service told us that they felt the manager was good at managing the home and was always present to speak with them about any concerns.

There were a range of systems in place to monitor the quality of people's care, and to make sure any concerns about staff, management or the way in which care was delivered were addressed.

Four people we spoke with who lived at the home gave us permission to look at their rooms and they told us that they were now involved in the cleaning of the home including their rooms and said that the manager and staff helped them to organise and do this task. We found that the home was clean and hygienic and met the standard required.

We found that people were cared for by suitably qualified skilled and experienced staff. Improvements had been made to the records and processes for staff recruitment and met the standard required.

Care planning and reviews took place regularly with involvement from people who used the service and care plans were agreed by people who used the service or their representatives. Three people we spoke with who lived at the home confirmed this to be the case. The staff understood people's care needs and how to protect them from risk and harm, however the routines for cleaning and maintenance of people's personal rooms were not adequate.

There was not adequate evidence available to demonstrate that the necessary pre-employment checks for staff had been carried before staff started working at the home, and police checks had not always been carried out. People understood their rights to make complaints or raise concerns and these were being managed appropriately.