Background to this inspection
Updated
29 December 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.
The inspection was carried out on 17 October 2017 and was unannounced on the first day, on subsequent days the provider knew we would be returning. We visited Sonali Gardens on 17 and 18 October 2017 and Coopers Court on 19 and 20 October 2017. The inspection was carried out by a single inspector, who was accompanied by a Bengali interpreter on the first day, and by a second inspector on 20 October 2017.
Prior to carrying out this inspection we reviewed information we held about the service, including notifications of events the provider is required to tell us about such as serious incidents and allegations of abuse. The provider also completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form which the provider is asked to complete to give information about what the service does well and how they plan to develop the service in future. We also contacted a member of staff from the local authority commissioning team.
In carrying out this inspection we spoke with 13 people who used the service and two family members of people who used the service. We reviewed records relating to the care, support and management of medicines of six people. We looked at records of recruitment and supervision of eight staff and records relating to the management of the service, such as team meetings, rotas, records of staff training, incidents and accidents and audits. We spoke with the area manager, registered manager, project manager, training and activities co-ordinators and six support workers.
Updated
29 December 2017
We last inspected this service in December 2015, where we rated the service “Good”. This inspection took place between 17 and 20 October 2017. At this inspection we found that the service remained “Good”.
Sonali Gardens is an extra care service which was providing personal care to 12 people at the time of our inspection, the majority of people using the service are from the Bengali Community. Also included in the location registration is Coopers Court, an extra care service which was providing personal care to 15 people at the time of our inspection.
Both services provide care and support to people who live in their own flats and provide 24 hour emergency cover. There are communal areas including a launderette, a lounge, dining room and shared garden. On each floor there is an accessible bathroom and sitting room.
The manager of Sonali Gardens is the registered manager for 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 our last inspection we said the safety of the service required improvement, as there were not suitable checks carried out to ensure that medicines and money were managed safely. At this inspection we found that the provider had acted on our findings and had introduced thorough checks in this area. We haven’t changed the rating in this area, as at this inspection we found that although the provider had measures in place to assess and manage risk, in some cases risk management plans did not fully address the current risks to some people who used the service.
The provider managed medicines safely in most cases and ensured that staff had suitable training and checks of their competency to do this. We saw that managers carried out regular checks on medicines and addressed issues of concern promptly; but we found one case where a medicated patch was not managed safely, which the provider took action to address.
Staff were recruited in line with safer recruitment practice and staffing levels reflected the needs of people who used the service. Staff received suitable training and supervision to ensure they had the right skills, but some areas of supervision and appraisal records were quite generic and repetitive.
People had consented to their care plans appropriately and care was delivered in line with these. People received additional support when required, for example for health appointments, and people received the right support to eat and drink. People and staff were confident raising concerns with management and complaints were addressed appropriately. There had been two substantiated safeguarding incidents regarding the conduct of staff; there was evidence that the provider had taken appropriate action in response to these and had learnt from these incidents. People we spoke with told us they were treated with respect. Both services operated a varied activity programme which continued to develop and was a high organisational priority.
Managers had systems in place to check the delivery of care and the quality of records. These included carrying out spot checks and raising issues with staff through recorded conversations. Managers were visible in the service and people spoke highly of them. In practice the service operated as two separate services over the two sites, which was not in line with the provider’s registration, however the provider told us they intended to register Coopers Court as a separate service.
We have made a recommendation about how the provider ensures that all risk management plans contain clear guidance for staff.