• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Roper Street

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

30 Roper Street, Whitehaven, Cumbria, CA28 7BS (01946) 599276

Provided and run by:
Croftlands Trust

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

10th October 2015

During a routine inspection

This was an announced inspection that took place on Saturday 10th October 2015.

Roper Street is part of the Croftlands Trust which provides care homes and personal care support throughout Cumbria. This service provides support to people in both Copeland and Allerdale. Most of the support provided is to people who have enduring mental health problems. Some people live in tenancies near to the office and have support from staff on an on-going basis. Other people who use the service have less intensive support in their own homes.

At this visit only four people were in receipt of personal care support but other people had housing, social and psychological support. We only looked at the support provided to people in receipt of personal care.

The home had a registered manager. 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.

Staff understood how to protect vulnerable people from harm and abuse. Staff were trained in this and in matters of equality and diversity. Staff told us that they could report any issues in confidence to the registered manager or the provider.

The service had a suitable emergency plan in place that had been recently updated. Accidents and incidents were managed appropriately.

We judged that staffing levels were appropriate to provide people with suitable levels of care and support.

Recruitment was managed appropriately. New team members had suitable background checks before they started to work in the service.

The organisation had a disciplinary process which was used when there were any issues of poor practice.

The staff in the project understood how to manage infection control and told us they had access to equipment and cleaning materials when necessary.

Medicines management in the service needed some improvement. The registered manager was aware of some issues and was dealing with gaps in the management processes.

This meant that the service was in breach of Regulation 12 (2) (g) because some elements of medicines management could have been unsafe for people in the service.

Staff received suitable training on all the issues that the organisation deemed to be necessary to keep people safe and well cared for. Staff told us they did e-learning and attended external training courses.

We saw evidence to show that staff received both formal and informal supervision. We also saw records of annual appraisals.

Staff showed a good understanding of mental health legislation. They received training that gave them knowledge of mental health issues.

The team did not use restraint in the service but had contingency plans to deal with any episodes of mental ill health. People were, where appropriate, asked for consent for all interventions. Staff understood that they should always use the least restrictive interventions where people needed support.

Staff helped some people to shop and make meals. They encouraged people to eat healthily.

The office was in a secure building and there was accommodation for staff who slept-in overnight. The service had suitable telephone and IT systems.

We saw caring and sensitive interactions between staff and people who used the service. Staff were patient and showed a good understanding of the distress that mental ill health might cause.

People had ready access to advocacy. Staff were careful to ensure people had privacy and confidentiality maintained. Independence was promoted in all the support given.

Assessment and care planning were of a good standard. People told us that they were involved in all aspects of their recovery planning as well as their day-to-day needs.

People were encouraged to go out and to participate in community activities.

There had been no formal complaints or concerns. The organisation had suitable policies and procedures about this.

The service had a suitably qualified and experienced registered manager. The organisation was in the process of reviewing matters of governance in all their services. The proposed changes would help rationalise the management structure and allow the services to work more effectively.

This service had good, routine quality monitoring systems in place. Records were of a good standard.

We had evidence to show that the team worked well with local GPs and members of the mental health teams in the area.

You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full report.

5 September 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' 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?

We judged the service to be safe because on the day of our visit we saw that care planning was being done in depth with good outcomes for individuals.

We also saw that there were suitable arrangements in place for reporting any suspected safeguarding issues.

The organisation made careful checks on any new member of staff so that only suitable staff members were employed.

Is the service effective?

We read care and support plans and we saw that the work that staff did with individuals was effective. We saw that people received support that helped in their recovery from mental ill-health.

Is the service caring?

We met the two people who received personal care from the service. We learned that they received caring and sensitive support from staff. We saw staff interacting with them in a caring way.

Is the service responsive?

We saw minutes of tenants meetings and individual reviews. These showed that staff listened and responded to requests. We also saw staff working with individuals and responding to their requests.

Is the service well-led?

This service was managed by a person who was an area manager and had responsibility for managing this service and another similar service. She also line managed a number of other managers.

We had evidence to show that she had suitable systems in place to manage teams of staff, the resources to meet people's needs and had an overview of the care needs of individuals.

19 July 2013

During a routine inspection

People who received care and support from the service were happy with the levels of care they received.

"The staff are great...they understand me and I feel quite safe as I know I can talk to them."

"The staff team who support me are very good...I rate them highly...they are blinding!"

We saw that people in the service were protected from harm and abuse because suitable arrangements were in place to protect them. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and were able to deal with any allegations appropriately.

Staff told us they got suitable levels of training and support. One member of staff told us :

"I am interested in the care of people with dementia and I asked to go on a course and this was agreed...I think we get good training opportunities."

We checked on the monitoring of quality and we saw that the local systems were now supplemented by a new system introduced by the Croftlands Trust. A senior member of the management team was undertaking a quality audit on the day of our visit.

We looked at a wide range of records during our visit to the office and we found these to be up to date, kept securely and relevant to the work undertaken