You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 June 2016

We carried out this inspection on 18 & 20 May 2016 and the inspection was unannounced.

Thanet House is a care home registered to provide care and support for up to six adults with mental health needs. At the time of the inspection there were six people living at the service.

The service did not have a registered manager in place. At the time of the inspection the manager had applied to be registered with the commission. 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 service did not have adequate audits in place to effectively manage medicine stock. Audits carried out by staff did not always tally with the amount of medicines available in stock. Staff calculations of medicines remaining was incorrect, this meant it was difficult to ascertain if the remaining medicines were correct and if people had received their medicines as prescribed. The manager was implementing a new auditing tool for medicines, which would quickly identify errors and minimise the risk to people.

The last inspection took place on 17 July 2014 and the service met all areas inspected.

The service had comprehensive systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm and abuse. Risk assessments were in place that identified risks to people and gave staff guidelines on how to manage those risks. Staff were aware of the different types of abuse and the appropriate steps to take in reporting suspected abuse. Staff had received safeguarding training.

People’s care plans were person centred and tailored to meet their needs. Staff received guidance on how to support people according to their preferences and needs. Care plans detailed people’s history, likes and dislikes, medical needs and support requirements. Care plans were regularly updated to reflect people’s changing needs. Where possible people were encouraged to develop their care plans and their input and views were listened to and respected.

People’s consent was sought prior to the delivery of care. People were encouraged to make decisions about the care they received and their choices were respected. The manager and staff were aware of the correct procedure should someone be unable to give their consent. People were not deprived of their liberty unlawfully. The manager and staff had sufficient knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA] and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] and their responsibilities within the legal framework.

Staff encouraged people’s privacy and dignity and were aware of the importance of doing so. Staff were kind and compassionate towards people in their care and encouraged positive relationships. People were encouraged to raise their concerns and complaints. People knew how to make a complaint and the manager was able to demonstrate the appropriate system for dealing with complaints in a timely manner. The service had information in the communal area of the service on how to raise a complaint.

People had sufficient amounts of nutritional food to eat and drink. The service liaised with health care professionals to support them in devising a healthy menu that met people’s dietary requirements. People were encouraged to prepare their own meals when appropriate. People’s independence was encouraged and praised. Staff supported people to participate in a wide range of both in house and community based activities.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of skilled and knowledgeable staff. The service had robust recruitment procedures in place to ensure suitable staff were employed. Staff personnel files showed the provider had received checks from the Disclosure and Barring Service [DBS], two references and photo identification prior to staff starting work. Staff und

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 June 2016

The service was safe. The service administered, recorded and stored peoples medicine in line with good practice. People’s medicines were audited regularly; however errors were not identified as part of the auditing process. The manager had introduced robust auditing tools to minimise the risk of unsafe medicine management.

People were supported by staff that could identify the different types of abuse. Staff received safeguarding training. Staff were aware of the correct procedure in reporting suspected abuse and harm. Risk assessments gave staff guidance on how to manage identified risks.

People received care and support from sufficient numbers of staff that had undergone the necessary safe recruitment checks.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 June 2016

The service was effective. People received support from skilled and knowledgeable staff. Staff undertook on-going training to meet people’s needs.

People were not deprived of their liberty unlawfully. Staff received mental capacity act 2005 (MCA) and deprivation of liberty safeguard (DoLS) training and were aware of their responsibilities in line with legislation.

People’s consent to care and treatment was sought prior to care being delivered.

People were encouraged to attend health care appointments in the local community to maintain and monitor their health care needs.

People were supported to have sufficient amounts eat and drink. People’s nutritional needs were monitored by staff and staff encouraged people to eat healthily.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 June 2016

The service was caring. People were encouraged to maintain positive relationships with people important to them.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected and encouraged. Staff were aware of the importance of respecting people’s dignity and privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 June 2016

The service was responsive. People received care and support that was person centred and met their changing needs. Care plans gave staff guidance on how to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to make decisions about their care wherever possible. Staff gave people information in a manner they preferred to enable them to make decisions. Staff respected people’s decisions.

People were aware of how to make a complaint and raise their concerns. The service responded to people’s concerns in a timely manner.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 June 2016

The service was well-led. The manager encouraged an open and inclusive culture where people’s views and goals were respected and encouraged.

People had access to the manager. The manager operated an ‘open door’ policy, where people could speak with her at a time that was convenient to them.

The manager sought feedback on the service to drive improvement. The service sent quality assurance questionnaires to people, their relatives and health care professionals. Where appropriate action was taken to address identified areas of concern.