You are here

Craegmoor Supporting You in the South West Requires improvement

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at Craegmoor Supporting You in the South West. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 4 January 2019

This inspection took place on 21 and 22 November 2018, both days were announced.

When we last inspected the service in May 2016 we rated the service Good.

We gave the provider 48 hours' notice because we needed to be sure the manager would be available for the inspection. It also allowed us to arrange to visit people receiving the service.

This service provides care and support to people living in a ‘supported living’ setting, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

There was not 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 provider had arranged for a manager from one of their other services to oversee this service. This management arrangement had been in place since July 2018.

Some improvement were required to ensure the service fully worked in line with the values and principles of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. Registering the Right Support CQC policy.

Although people had their own home and made some of their own day to day decisions, we found staff were making some decisions on behalf of people without evidence the person lacked the capacity to make these themselves. Where restrictions were placed on people, for example, the kitchen being locked, there was a lack of evidence that this was the least restrictive option. The manager told us they would review all restrictions in place and ensure these were made in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People’s communication needs were not always fully met. The manager put plans in place to address this. Although relatives told us there had been some improvements since the new manager had been in post, they had not felt their concerns were listened and responded to.

Some areas of medicines management needed to be improved. Although there were a range of risk assessments in place, we found risks to people were not all identified and mitigated. Incidents were not always recorded and reported in line with the providers policy.

Although staff told us they felt supported in their role, one to one staff supervision had not been held regularly and in line with the providers policy.

Relative raised concerns about staff skills and knowledge to support their family members. The manager had arranged for staff to receive training and had an ongoing plan to ensure this was kept up to date.

Our observations of staff interactions were mixed. Confidentiality was not always respected. Relatives told us they thought most staff wanted to do the best for their family members and some of them were, “Really good” and they were, “Generally lovely.”

The systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service were not fully effective.

Relatives thought their family members were safe. There were systems in place to protect people from harm and abuse. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse and felt confident concerns would be acted upon.

There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs. Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff employed were suitable for their role.

People received support from specialist health professionals where relevant. People were involved in the planning and preparing of their meals.

People had individual care plans that identified their needs and preferences.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 4 January 2019

Some aspects of the service were not safe.

Areas of people’s medicines management needed to be improved.

Some risks relating to people had not been identified and mitigated.

There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs.

The processes for reporting incidents relating to people had not always been followed.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 4 January 2019

The service was not fully effective.

Staff supporting people did not always receive regular one to one supervision.

People's legal rights in relation to decision making were not always upheld.

People were supported by health and social care professionals.

People were supported to maintain a healthy and balanced diet.

Staff supporting people received training and the manager had a plan to address their ongoing training needs.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 4 January 2019

Some aspects of the service were not caring.

Staff interactions with people were mixed.

People’s confidentiality was not always respected.

People’s relatives told us staff were mostly caring and regular staff who their relatives well.

People’s relatives told us staff respected people, however they did not always respect people’s belongings.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 4 January 2019

Some aspects of the service were not responsive.

People’s relatives told us complaints had not always been responded, however this had recently improved.

People’s communication needs were not always fully met.

People’s care plans identified their needs and preferences.

People had access to a range of activities and the service was looking into ways of introducing more opportunities.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 4 January 2019

The service was not always well led.

The systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service people received were not fully effective.

The provider had an action plan in place that identified action points to improve the service people received.

There were systems in place for people and their relatives to provide feedback on the service.

People’s relatives and staff commented positively about the new manager.

People were supported by staff who felt positive about their job.