You are here

Archived: Allens Mead Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 April 2017

The Inspection was carried out on 16 February 2016 and was announced. We announced the inspection to ensure that the manager and person living at the service were available. The home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to two people with learning disabilities, autism and people who may harm themselves or others. However, the service is now a single person service providing care and support to one person with a learning disability and behaviour that challenges. The accommodation was spread over three floors giving people plenty of personal space and shared areas. One bedroom had en-suite shower facilities.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 5 November 2015 . A breach of legal requirements was found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Allens Mead on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

There was not a registered manager employed at the home. 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. However, the registered provider had arranged management cover and has a recruitment plan in place so that the acting manager will become the registered manager.

The acting manager had implemented a quality auditing system but the frequency of audits was not happening regularly enough to identify all shortfalls in service delivery. There was not sufficient senior management oversight of the service. We have made recommendations about this in our report.

The culture of the service was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering. The acting manager was looking for ways to improve the service and was seeking people’s opinion.

The registered provider had made plans to cover the absence of the registered manager. The acting manager provided effective leadership to the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 January 2016

The service was safe.

There was an up to date safeguarding procedure in place with current practice and guidance.

Individual risk assessments were in place and regularly reviewed.

Medicines were managed well, independently audited and the staff understood their responsibilities

There were suitable amounts of staff to deliver safe care and support.

Safe recruitment practices were in place to ensure suitable staff were employed.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 January 2016

The service was effective.

Staff were supported effectively through induction, training and supervision so they had the skills needed to meet people’s needs.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People’s capacity to consent to care or treatment was assessed and recorded.

Staff ensured people’s health needs were met. Referrals were made to health and social care professionals when needed.

People were provided with a suitable range of nutritious food and drink

Caring

Good

Updated 28 January 2016

The service was caring

Staff understood people’s likes and dislikes, personal histories and the best way to meet their needs.

People were treated as individuals and able to make choices about their care wherever possible.

Staff had forged good relationships with people so that they felt comfortable and relaxed.

People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff understood how to maintain people’s privacy and their records were kept confidential.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 January 2016

The service was responsive.

Care plans contained detailed information and clear guidance to enable staff to fully meet people’s needs.

Care plans showed that people were encouraged to be involved in the planning and review of their care

Relatives and other relevant people were involved in care plan reviews to ensure a holistic approach

Staff made prompt referrals to healthcare professionals when people’s needs changed.

The complaints procedure was available and people knew what to do if they had concerns

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 5 April 2017

Allens Mead was not consistently well led.

Quality audits were not happening regularly enough to identify all shortfalls within the service.

The acting manager provided effective leadership to the staff team.

The culture of the service was open, inclusive and empowering. Staff told us about how they had made changes to the service to make it more person centred.