You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 August 2017

St Barnabas Southwold provides personal care for up to 15 older people. This was the first inspection of this service since the provider re-registered with the Commission following their registration under a new charity commission. There were 13 people living in the service when we inspected on 28 March 2017. This was an unannounced inspection.

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.

Staff had good relationships with people who used the service and their relatives. People were consulted on how they wanted to be supported, and different forums were used to enable them to share their views and influence change. The interactions between staff and people were caring, respectful, supported people's dignity and carried out in a respectful manner.

People were complementary about the quality of food which met their dietary needs and preferences. Dietary needs and nutrition were being managed and advice sought from appropriate health professionals as needed. Health care needs were met through being supported to access external health care professionals.

People felt that the service was providing safe care. Risks to people were being assessed and appropriate measures taken to minimise risk, without unnecessarily restricting people's independence. Staff understood their responsibilities in identifying and knowing what action to take to safeguard people’s welfare.

Improvements were needed to ensure medicines were consistently managed in a safe manner. Staff had received training and been given guidance. However, where staff were not completing people’s medicines records at the time of administration, there was a potential risk that a person may not be given their medicines as prescribed.

There were activities which people could take part in if they wished. The location of the service supported people to retain close links with the local community and retain friendships.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Their views were sought and used to influence and drive improvements within the service.

There were quality assurance processes in place to monitor the quality and safety of service people received and used to drive continuous improvement. Concerns and suggestions were listened to and acted on to drive improvements in the quality of the service they received. A complaints procedure was in place to ensure people's comments, concerns and complaints were listened to and addressed in a timely manner and used to improve the service.

People felt the service was well-led and supportive of people receiving a quality service which they would recommend to others.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 8 August 2017

The service was not consistently safe.

Medicines were not always managed safely.

Staff were knowledgeable about how to recognise abuse or potential abuse and how to respond to and report these concerns appropriately.

The service ensured people’s safety, including safe staffing numbers to meet their needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 August 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were trained to identify and meet people’s care and support needs.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to appropriate services which ensured they received on-going healthcare support.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and professional advice and support was obtained for people when needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 August 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated with respect and their privacy, independence and dignity was promoted and respected.

People’s independence and autonomy and choices about how they lived their daily lives had been promoted and respected by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 August 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s care was assessed and reviewed.

People were supported to maintain links with the community and access to people who were important to them.

People’s concerns and complaints were investigated, responded to and used to improve the quality of the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 August 2017

The service was well-led.

The service was run by a management team supported by the trusties of the charity that promoted an open culture and demonstrated a commitment to providing a good quality service.

People were asked for their views about the service and their comments were listened to and acted upon.

The service had a quality assurance system and identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.