Background to this inspection
Updated
24 February 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
We called the home before our inspection because we visited at the weekend and as Raglan House is a small care home for younger adults we needed to be sure that someone would be in.
The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.
Before we visited the home we reviewed information we held about the service. We had not asked the provider to submit a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We were able to gather this information in other ways including talking with staff and the registered manager.
During our inspection visit, we spoke with six people who used the service, observed staff interactions with the people who used the service and spoke with two care staff, the registered manager and a relative.
We looked at records relating to the care of the ttwo people living in the home including care plans, risk assessments and medicines records. We also looked at records related to how the home was run including meeting minutes, two staff files and training records and audit records.
Updated
24 February 2016
Raglan House is a small service registered to provide care and support to up to seven people with learning disabilities in a residential road in Weymouth. At the time of our inspection there were six people living in the home.
This service needed to have a registered manager and there was one 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 were caring and knew people well. They were able to describe what mattered to people and the support and care they needed to stay safe and well.
People were protected from avoidable harm because risks had been assessed and guidance was available to staff. Staff knew how to identify abuse and who they should report any concerns to.
Staff were attentive to peoples' needs and records were made to ensure requests and concerns were addressed. People’s care plans included information about personal preferences and provided individual detail about how people were supported day to day. Staff kept clear records about the care that they provided.
People were involved in activities that they enjoyed. They were engaged with a wide range of activities that reflected individual preferences, including individual and group activities. These activities were supported by care staff and were available throughout our inspection.
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been applied for when people who needed to live in the home to be cared for safely, did not have the mental capacity to consent to this. Staff understood these Safeguards. Care was provided in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
People were supported by staff who had received appropriate training to do their jobs and cared about their welfare. Interactions between staff and those living in the home were gentle, familiar and kind.
People had access to appropriate healthcare for on-going and emerging health needs. This included dental care, psychiatry and input from their general practice. They received their medicines safely.
People described the food as good and there were systems in place to ensure people had enough food to eat and enough to drink. People had choice of food and drinks and these options reflected guidance from speech and language therapists about safe eating.
People told us the staff were kind. Staff treated people, relatives, other staff and visitors with respect and kindness throughout our inspection.
There were robust quality assurance systems in place. Where the need for improvements was identified as necessary action was taken to ensure this happened.