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

Reports


Inspection carried out on 16 February 2017

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

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 carried out on 5th November 2015

During a routine inspection

The Inspection was carried out on Thursday 5th November 2015 and was unannounced.

This home provided accommodation and personal care for up to two people with learning disabilities, autism and people who may harm themselves or others. The accommodation was spread over three floors giving people plenty of personal space and shared areas. One bedroom had en-suite shower facilities.

There was 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.

The registered manager was unable to devote enough time to the management and leadership of the service. Suitable support mechanisms for the registered manager were not followed by the provider to ensure they were carrying out their responsibilities in meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations.

General environmental risk assessments were in place but had not been regularly reviewed. People, including staff and visitors, may not be protected from potential risks around the home.

The provider did not have robust auditing systems and processes in place to check the quality of the service provided. Ensuring safe and effective practices and systems are being followed is a responsibility of the provider. Action may not be taken when changes or improvements were needed to keep people safe or to meet the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

People and their relatives told us and indicated they felt safe. There was an up to date safeguarding adult’s procedure and policy in place. The staff demonstrated they had a good understanding of what abuse is and how they would act if they suspected abuse was taking place.

People received support from staff with taking prescribed medicines. Policies and procedures were in place for the safe administration of medicines and staff had been trained to administer medicines safely.

Recruitment practices were safe and effective. Checks were carried out to make sure staff were suitable to work with people who needed care and support. Staff had received an induction when they were first employed and were supported by the manager in one to one and informal meetings.

The staff had the skills and knowledge in order to carry out their duties effectively and had received adequate training.

Staff supported people with their nutrition, hydration and health care needs. They encouraged healthy choices of food as well as giving people choice and support to make healthy decisions in this area.

Individual care was planned and delivered with the full involvement of people, their relatives and relevant others

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The registered manager and staff showed that they understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and DoLS. The registered manager understood their responsibilities as Mental Capacity assessments and decisions made in people’s best interest were recorded.

People’s needs were assessed before moving into the service with involvement from relatives, health professionals and the person’s funding authority. Care plans contained detailed person centred information and guidance. All aspects of a person’s health, social and personal care needs to enable staff to meet their individual requirements were included. People were encouraged and supported to engage in activities within the service and in the community.

Potential risks to people in their everyday lives had been individually identified and had been assessed in relation to the impact that it may have.

The staff knew people very well, including their personal histories and interests. We observed them being respectful and caring when speaking about or to people. There was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere in the home and there was a good rapport between people and staff. People’s privacy and dignity were respected by a team who understood how important this was to a person’s wellbeing.

Systems were in place for people or their relatives to raise their concerns or complaints.

People, relatives and professionals had been asked for their views of the service provided

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have taken at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection carried out on 16 December 2013

During a routine inspection

Because of the complex needs of the person we met on the inspection, they were unable to tell us directly about their experiences of living at Allens Mead. To address this, we used a variety of other methods to assess the care and support provided. For example, we spoke with a relative who said, "The staff are very good. My relative is improving gradually".

We saw that people's consent was obtained where possible before care and treatment was undertaken. We observed that the care given was safe and appropriate and based on effective care planning and risk assessments. This meant that people's individual needs were met and preferences were taken into account.

We observed that the provider has taken steps to provide care in an environment that is suitably designed and adequately maintained. We noted that there were adequate numbers of skilled and experienced staff to deliver safe and appropriate care. In addition, the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

Inspection carried out on 27 March 2013

During a routine inspection

We observed one service user being encouraged to be independent and we noted that staff treated service users with respect. Comments received from the service user included "I am happy here.. the staff are very nice".

We found that care was planned and delivered in such a way that it met the needs of individual service users.

Medications were stored and managed appropriately so people were protected from the risks of harm caused by medicines.

Overall, the property was in a good state of repair although the lounge ceiling had sustained water damage; the manager assured us that the damage would be repaired once the ceiling had sufficiently dried. We saw that stairs leading from the ground to first floor did not have a hand rail. This posed a risk to service users with poor mobility We found that one service user had recently fallen on the stairs. We have asked the provider to review the stair cases and to install hand rails where necessary to ensure the people are protected from the risk of harm which are associated with the layout and design of the property.

We found that there were sufficient staffing levels and staff had the appropriate skills to meet the needs of people using the service.

There was a system in place for seeking the views of people who used the service in order that the quality of care could be improved.

We found that the service was not always learning from incidents and they were not always taking action to reduce risks to service users.

Inspection carried out on 4 April 2012

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

This visit was to follow up the findings from our previous visit in December 2011. The purpose of the visit was to assess if action had been taken in regards to concerns which had been highlighted at the last visit.

We did not spend time specifically talking with people living in the home at this visit, as it was not needful for our assessments. However, people indicated that they were happy living in the home. During our visit we saw that people were being supported around the home by staff in a kind and sensitive manner, in a way that promoted individual independence.

Inspection carried out on 1 December 2011

During a routine inspection

People told us, or indicated that they liked the home and the staff.

People told us about the activities they liked doing and said that staff helped them with these.

We saw that staff gave support in a kind and sensitive manner so that it promoted individual independence. For example, we saw that staff supported one person to choose what activity they wanted to do.