You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 January 2018

Mon Choisy is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Mon Choisy accommodates 22 people in one adapted building. At the time of the inspection there were 28 people living at the service.

When we last inspected the service on 30 November 2016 and 5 December 2016. We found that the provider was in breach of regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because the provider did not have effective governance systems and procedures in place and had failed to identify some of the concerns we found during our inspection.

We also found the provider to be in breach of Regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Registration) Regulations (2014). This was because the provider had not reported important events that happen in the service to CQC. At this inspection we found that the provider had made significant improvements to address our concerns.

We saw evidence that arrangements were in place to formally assess, review and monitor the quality of care provided at the home. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities and had reported appropriately to CQC about notifiable events.

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.

People and their relatives told us people were safe living at Mon Choisy. Staff demonstrated they understood how to keep people safe and we noted that risks to people's safety and well-being were managed through a risk management process. We observed people's needs were met in a timely way by sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff. People were supported by staff who had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and applied it’s principles in their work.

The provider had a robust recruitment process in place which helped to ensure that staff employed were of good character and suited to the roles they were employed for. People's medicines were managed safely and kept under regular review. Infection control measures were in place to help reduce the risks of cross infection.

Staff told us, and records confirmed they had effective support. Staff received regular supervision

(one to one meetings with their manager) and yearly appraisals. People were supported appropriately to eat and drink sufficient amounts to help maintain their health and well-being. People's health care needs were taken care of and they had access to a range of healthcare professionals. Where required, appropriate referrals were made to external health professionals such as G.P’s or therapists.

People and their relatives were very complimentary about the staff and management at the home. They told us staff were kind, caring and compassionate. Staff members, including the management team, were knowledgeable about individuals' care and support needs and preferences. Visitors

were welcomed at all times and people were supported to maintain family relationships.

The provider had systems in place to receive feedback from people who used the service, their relatives, and staff members about the service provided. People were encouraged and supported to raise any concerns with staff or management and were confident they would be listened to and things would be addressed.

There was an open and inclusive culture in the home and people, their relatives and staff felt they could approach the management team and were comfortable to speak with the registered manager if they had a concern.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 January 2018

The service was safe. People told us that they felt safe.

Staff were aware of how to safeguard people from harm and were aware of potential risks and signs of abuse.

People, their relatives and staff told us that there were enough staff available to meet people`s needs.

Staff administered medicines to people in line with their prescription.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 January 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had been trained in the MCA and applied it's principles in their work.

Staff had the training, skills and support to meet people’s needs.

The service worked with other health professionals to ensure people's physical health needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 January 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and respectful and treated people with dignity and respect.

People benefited from caring relationships.

The staff were friendly, polite and compassionate when providing support to people.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 January 2018

The service was responsive.

Staff understood people's needs and preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about the support people needed.

People's needs were assessed to ensure they received personalised care.

There was a range of activities for people to engage with.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 January 2018

Arrangements were in place to formally assess, review and monitor the quality of care provided at the home.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities and had reported appropriately to CQC about notifiable events.

The service had a culture of openness and honesty.