You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 March 2018

This inspection took place on 27 February 2018 and was announced. At the last inspection on 7 February 2017, the service was rated as requires improvement. We asked the provider to take action to make improvements with regard to staff induction, medicine management and risk of people, visitors and staff consuming contaminated water. This action has been completed.

Colenso is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service provides accommodation and support with personal care for up to five adults with learning disabilities who may also have mental health needs. At the time of our visit, there were three people using the service.

There was no registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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.

Relatives and people told us the service was safe and they did not have any concerns.

There were processes in place to minimise risks to people's safety. Staff understood what constituted abuse or poor practice and systems were in place to protect people from the risk of harm. They knew when they should escalate concerns to external organisations. Potential risks to people’s health and well-being were identified and managed effectively.

The recruitment procedures were thorough with appropriate checks undertaken before new staff members started working for the service. There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s individual needs.

Staff received training and support to deliver a good quality of care to people and a training programme was in place to address identified training needs. Newly appointed staff completed an induction programme.

The manager and staff understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They respected decisions people made about their care and gained people's consent before they provided care and support.

People received care and support in a compassionate way from a staff team that knew them well and were familiar with their needs. Staff had built a good relationship with people and their privacy and dignity were respected. Confidentiality of people’s personal information was maintained.

People’s dietary needs were taken into account and their nutritional needs were monitored appropriately. Staff supported people to take their medicines safely.

The complaints policy and procedure was accessible to people and their relatives. The manager ensured that any issues raised were resolved to the satisfaction of the person.

The provider had effective systems in place to quality assure the services provided and to drive improvement. Feedback about the service was sought from people, relatives, staff and other professionals. If any improvements were needed, these were implemented.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 17 March 2018

The service was safe. Staff understood their role in safeguarding people and how to raise concerns about people�s safety.

Risks to people�s individual health and wellbeing were identified and care was planned to minimise the risks.

Effective recruitment practices were followed to help ensure all staff were fit, able and qualified to do their jobs. There were enough staff to make sure people had the care and support they needed.

People received support with their medicine which was managed safely.

There were systems in place for the monitoring and prevention of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 March 2018

The service was effective. An initial assessment of people was carried out before they started using the service.

Staff were trained and supported to enable them to meet people�s individual needs. They understood their responsibilities in relation to consent and supporting people to make decisions.

People were supported to maintain good health and to access healthcare services when they needed them.

People�s dietary needs were taken into account and their nutritional needs were monitored appropriately.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 March 2018

The service was caring. Staff were aware of people�s preferences and respected their privacy and dignity. There was a positive relationship between people and the staff who supported them.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and support and were supported to maintain relationships with their relatives.

Staff supported people to enable them to remain as independent as possible. Confidentiality of people�s personal information was maintained.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 March 2018

The service was responsive. People received care and support that met their needs and took account of their personal circumstances.

Staff had a good understanding of people�s needs, choices and preferences, and were aware of how to meet people�s individual needs as they changed.

The provider�s complaints policy and procedure was accessible to people and their relatives.

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 March 2018

The service was well led. There was an open and positive culture within the service, which was focussed on people.

People and their representatives felt the service was well managed and staff felt supported.

There were clear lines of responsibility and accountability within the management structure.

There were regular audits carried out to monitor the quality of the service and drive improvements. The provider continually sought feedback about the service from people, relatives, staff and other professionals.