You are here

Archived: Mokattam Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

Our inspection took place on 7 June 2018 and was announced.

Mokattam is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. We regulate both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the “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.

The service can provide care and support for up to six adults with learning disabilities or autism. At the time of our inspection, the service accommodated six people. Each person had their own bedroom, and there were communal facilities such as dining, lounge and kitchen. The premises were adapted into a care home. The service is due to move to a new location in 2019. We made a recommendation regarding Mokattam’s move to a new house.

The provider is required to have a registered manager as part of their conditions of registration. 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. At the time of our inspection, there was a registered manager in post.

At our last inspection on 15 May 2017, there were three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We issued three requirement notices against the provider and required an action plan. At this inspection, there was evidence that satisfactory changes were made to ensure people’s health and safety was protected, and that the quality of care was monitored and effectively managed. The service has now achieved compliance with the relevant regulations.

We found people were protected against abuse or neglect. There were personalised risk assessments tailored to people’s individual needs. Sufficient staff were deployed to provide support to the person and ensure their safety. Medicines were safely managed. The premises were clean and tidy.

The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated codes of practice. People were assisted 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.

Staff received appropriate induction, training, supervision and support. This ensured their knowledge, skills and experience were suitable. People’s care preferences, likes and dislikes were assessed, recorded and respected. Access to other community healthcare professionals ensured the person could maintain a healthy lifestyle.

Staff had caring relationships with people who used the service and their relatives. There was complimentary feedback from people, relatives and other healthcare professionals about staff and the service. People’s privacy was respected and they received dignified support from staff.

The service provided very person-centred care to people. People and relatives were included in care planning and reviews. Care plans were detailed and contained information on how staff could provide appropriate support in conjunction with people. Some care plans required more up-to-date information and reviews. There was a satisfactory complaints system in place.

The service was well-led. This had improved since our last inspection. There was a positive workplace culture and staff felt that management listened to what they had to say. The provider had improved methods to measure the safety and quality of care. The service had strong relationships with community

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse and neglect.

People’s risk assessments ensured that staff knew their care needs.

People and others were protected from risks associated with the equipment.

Infection prevention and control requires further improvement.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was not always effective.

The building remained unsuitable for people with learning disabilities. A new house was under construction.

People were supported by staff who had the necessary knowledge, skills and training to care and support them.

People were protected from malnutrition and dehydration.

The service was compliant with the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was caring.

People had formed positive bonds with staff.

People were placed at the centre of all decision-making.

People’s privacy and dignity was protected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was responsive.

Information was provided to people in a way they could understand it.

People’s daily notes were improved by the inclusion of holistic information, such as feelings, emotions and social events.

Satisfactory care plans were in place, but some required reviews and transfer to the provider’s own forms.

An appropriate complaints management system was in operation.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was well-led.

Risks to people and others were managed by the introduction of robust quality management systems.

There was a positive workplace culture at Mokattam.

The service complied with our conditions of registration.

The service had an active presence in the local community and worked in partnership with other agencies.