Archived: Fred Tibble Court

The service provides support with personal care to older people who live in an extra care housing service. The care provider does not provide people’s accommodation. At the time of our inspection 18 people were using the service, some of whom had dementia.

The service did not have a registered manager in place. An acting manager had recently been appointed who told us they were in the process of applying to register with the Care Quality Commission. 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.

There were enough staff working at the service to meet people’s needs and robust staff recruitment procedures were in place. Appropriate safeguarding procedures were in place and people told us they felt safe using the service. Medicines were managed safely.

Staff undertook an induction training programme on commencing work at the service and received on-going training after that. People were able to make choices for themselves where they had the capacity to do so and the service operated within spirit of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were able to make choices about what they ate and drink. People were supported to access relevant health care professionals.

People told us they were treated with respect and that staff were caring. Staff had a good understanding of how to promote people’s privacy, independence and dignity.

People’s needs were assessed before they began using the service. People were supported to engage in various activities. The service had a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint.

Staff and people spoke positively about the registered manager. Systems were in place to seek the views of people on the running of the service.

During this inspection we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because risk assessments were not sufficiently robust, care plans were not personalised. We also made a recommendation. This was because quality assurance systems had failed to address these shortfalls. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of the full version of this report.

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

Risk assessments were in place which set out how to meet people's needs in a safe way. Staff had undertaken training in various topics to help ensure they provided safe care. This included training about moving and handling people and the safe administration of medication. People were aware of whom they could complain to if needed, one person told us "I would talk to the staff if anything was not right."

Is the service effective?

People told us they were happy with the care and support they received and that the service met their needs. A relative said "they know my mum really well. She gets a lot of care and attention, the kind of things she likes such as reading to her." Staff had a good understanding of how to meet people's individual and assessed needs and of their care plans. Staff undertook training to help them meet people's needs, for example about end of life care and dementia.

Is the service caring?

People told us that the staff had a caring attitude. One person told us "she (the carer) is very kind, she treats me well." Staff explained to us how they promoted people's choice, privacy and independence. We observed staff interacting with people in a polite and friendly manner.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before service provision began. People were involved in planning the care they received and were able to make choices about how they were cared for. Care plans included information about people's likes, dislikes and preferences. The service sought people's views about the support they received through an annual survey.

Is the service well-led?

There was a clear management structure in place. Staff told us they found the management helpful and approachable. Records showed staff had access to one to one supervision with senior staff. This gave staff the opportunity to discuss important issues with management. Quality assurance and monitoring processes were in place. These had led to improvements, for example in the provision of training for staff. This meant staff were better able to meet the needs of people who used the service.

People told us they felt safe at the service. One person said "you have got good safety." Staff had a good understanding of their responsibility with regard to safeguarding vulnerable adults. However, the service needs to ensure that safeguarding incidents are reported to the Care Quality Commission.

People spoke well of the staff. One person said of them "they are all lovely." Staff told us they received regular training. Records showed staff had supervision, but we found this did not occur as frequently as the manager told us it should. We found that various mechanisms were in place to monitor the quality of service provision, and people told us they were asked for their views on the service. We found records were kept up to date, for example care plans and risk assessments.

People told us they were happy with the staff. One person told us "the carers are very good." Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of their roles and responsibility. We saw that recruitment procedures were in place that included obtaining references and Criminal Records Bureau checks for staff prior to them commencing work at the service. People and their relatives told us they knew who to make a complaint if they needed to. We found that there was an accessible complaints procedure in place, and that complaints received had being investigated.