You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 October 2017

This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on 30 and 31 August 2017. This is the first inspection of the service since their registration in September 2015 with a new provider, Heritage Care Limited.

101 Brook Street provides respite care for people who require nursing or personal care for up to six adults who have a range of needs including learning disabilities. There were six people receiving personal care and support at the time of our inspection.

At this inspection we found staff were not supported through regular formal supervision and annual appraisals in line with the provider’s policy, and this required improvement. The registered manager told us that they were aware of this concern and that they have now put a plan in place to ensure every staff received a formal supervision by end of September 2017 and then regularly in the future.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The registered manager told us that staff were being closely monitored on their shifts and were supported through the staff meetings. Staff meeting records we saw confirmed this. The service provided an induction and training, and supported staff to help them undertake their role.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and that staff and the registered manager treated them well. The service had clear procedures to support staff to recognise and respond to abuse. The registered manager and staff completed safeguarding training. Staff completed risk assessments for every person who used the service which were up to date and included detailed guidance for staff to reduce risks.

There was an effective system to manage accidents and incidents, and to prevent them happening again. The service carried out comprehensive background checks of staff before they started working. Staff supported people so that they took their medicines safely.

The provider had taken action to ensure the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were followed.

Staff assessed people’s nutritional needs and supported them to have a balanced diet. Staff supported people to access the healthcare services they required and monitored their healthcare appointments.

People and their relatives where appropriate, were involved in the assessment, planning and review of their care. Staff considered people’s choices, health and social care needs, and their general wellbeing. Staff prepared, reviewed, and updated care plans for every person.

Staff supported people in a way which was kind, respectful and encouraged them to maintain their independence. Staff also protected people’s privacy and dignity, and human rights.

The service had a clear policy and procedure about managing complaints. People knew how to complain and told us they would do so if necessary.

There was a positive culture at the home where people felt included and consulted. People and their relatives commented positively about staff and the registered manager. Staff told us they felt supported and able to approach the registered manager, at any time for support.

The provider had systems and processes in place to assess and monitor the quality of services people received, and to make improvements where required. They used the results from the audits and made improvements to the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 October 2017

The service was safe.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and that staff and the registered manager treated them well. The service had a policy and procedure for safeguarding adults from abuse, which the staff understood.

Staff completed risk assessments for every person who used the service. Risk assessments were up to date and included guidance for staff on how to reduce identified risks. The service had a system to manage accidents and incidents to reduce reoccurrence.

The service had enough staff to support people. The provider carried out satisfactory background checks before they started working.

Staff kept the premises clean and safe. They administered medicines to people safely.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 24 October 2017

One aspect of the service was not effective.

Staff were not supported through regular formal supervision and annual appraisals in line with the provider�s policy, and this required improvement.

The service supported staff through training and team meetings.

Staff assessed people�s nutritional needs and supported them to have a balanced diet.

Relatives commented positively about staff and told us they were satisfied with the way their loved ones were looked after.

The registered manager and staff knew the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, and acted according to this legislation.

Staff supported people to access the healthcare services when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 October 2017

The service was caring.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they were happy with the service. They said staff were kind and treated them with respect.

People were involved in making day to day decisions about the care and support they received.

Staff respected people�s choices, preferences, privacy, dignity, and showed an understanding of equality and diversity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 October 2017

The service was responsive.

Staff assessed people�s needs and developed care plans which included details of people�s views and preferences.

Care plans were regularly reviewed and up to date. Staff completed daily care records to show what support and care they provided to each person.

Staff met people�s need for stimulation and social interaction.

People and their relatives knew how to complain and would do so if necessary. The service had a clear policy and procedure for managing complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 October 2017

The service was well-led.

People who used the service and their relatives commented positively about the registered manager and staff.

The service had systems and processes to assess and monitor the quality of the care people received. Staff used learning from audits to identify areas in which the service could improve.

The service had a positive culture. People and staff felt the service cared about their opinions and included them in decisions about making improvements to the service.