You are here

Head Office (Omega Homes Ltd) Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 13 August 2021

About the service

Head Office (Omega Homes) is a supported living service. It provides personal care to younger adults with learning disabilities, and physical disabilities living in their own houses which were supported living environments. People needed help with day-to-day tasks like cooking, shopping, washing and dressing and help to maintain their health and wellbeing. People had a variety of complex needs including mental and physical health needs.

Head Office (Omega Homes) provides care and support to people living in two 'supported living' settings, so that they can live 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.

The service had two supported living properties in Gravesend area of Kent, one in Southfleet and one in Gravesend. In these premises people each had their own bedrooms, but shared the kitchen, dining room, lounge, laundry and the garden. There was an office at each site and a sleep-in facility for staff to provide overnight support.

Not everyone using Head Office (Omega Homes) receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. The service was providing personal care to seven people diagnosed with learning disabilities and autism at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Risks to people's safety had not always been identified. Risk assessments did not have all the information staff needed to keep people safe. Medicines management had improved; however, medicines were not always stored securely.

People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff did not always support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service did not always support this practice. Some people's care files showed mental capacity assessments and best interest decision making had not always been carried out with relevant people. One person had an alarm fitted to their door which they had not consented to, their relatives and other health and social care professionals involved in their life had not been informed or involved in the decision making.

Accidents and incidents had appropriately been recorded. However, the accident and incident forms had not always been updated by a member of the management team to detail what action had been taken. Relevant people had not always been informed of accidents and incidents which included notifiable events such as a serious injury and safeguarding concerns.

Information about people's health needs and their preferences for support were not always clear. Some people had a diagnosis of epilepsy. Their support plans, keeping healthy plans and hospital passports did not always detail that they had a diagnosis of epilepsy and how staff should support them if they had a seizure.

When people’s needs had changed their assessments and support plans had not always been updated and amended to detail their current assessed needs. Support plans and supporting documentation were not always individualised and person centred. Which meant that people may receive care and support which did not meet their needs.

The service was not well led. The registered manager knew people well and people were comfortable communicating with them. The registered manager and provider had carried out the appropriate checks to ensure that the quality of the service was maintained. However, the audits and checks were not robust. They had not captured the issues relating to risk management, consent and planning, care and treatment we had identified.

There were suitable numbers of staff on shift to meet people's needs. Staff had been safely r

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 13 August 2021

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 13 August 2021

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 August 2021

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 13 August 2021

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Inadequate

Updated 13 August 2021

The service was not well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.