We carried out a review of the data available to us about Royal Mencap Society - Essex Domiciliary Care on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Royal Mencap Society - Essex Domiciliary Care, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Staff knew who to report to if they felt a person was at risk of potential abuse. However, they felt the management of the service did not always listen to them and felt communication within the service between the management and them was poor. We have made a recommendation regarding this under the well led section of this report.
Staff generally felt there were enough staff working in the service. However, there had been changes in staffing hours and staff told us the reasons for this had not been fully explained to them even though, they had expressed their concerns to management. Relatives and people, we spoke to told us they felt there were enough staff to provide the support to them when they needed assistance.
Medication was administered by staff who had received training to do so and medicines were managed safely. Risk assessments were in place, which identified possible risks and how to manage them.
The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Actions were taken and improvements were made when required. Relatives felt able to speak with the staff team at any time if they needed to know about their loved one. However, the general feedback from relatives was that the communication from the management of the service could be better
The last rating for this service was good (published 15 September 2017).
Why we inspected
We received concerns in relation to safeguarding and infection control processes. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern.
We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Royal Mencap Churchfields website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At our last inspection this service was rated ‘Good’ and at this inspection we found that the service remained ‘Good’.
There was a registered manager 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.
The registered manager monitored the quality of service people received and looked at ways the service could be continuously improved. We have made a recommendation about improving consistency across the service.
People received a safe service and were protected from the risk of harm. There were enough staff that had been safely recruited to help keep people safe and meet their needs. Medication management was good and people received their medication as prescribed.
People were cared for by experienced, supported and well trained staff. The service supported people to have as much choice and control over their lives in the least restrictive way possible. People received sufficient food and drink to meet their needs and preferences and their healthcare needs were met.
Staff knew the people they cared for well and were kind, caring and compassionate in their approach. People were encouraged and supported to remain as independent as possible. Staff ensured that people were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was maintained at all times.
People were fully involved in the assessment and care planning process. Their care plans had been regularly reviewed to reflect their changing needs. People were encouraged and supported to participate in a range of activities to suit their individual interests. Complaints were dealt with appropriately in a timely way.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 11 November 2015.
We last inspected Churchfields in November 2013. At that inspection we found the service was meeting the legal requirements in force at the time. The service is registered to accommodate up to 34 people with a learning disability. At this inspection 28 people were resident. Accommodation is in small scale bungalows and flats with a central office and small day centre.
A registered manager is in place. 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 had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse to assist them to protect people from harm. Staff were aware of the whistle blowing procedure which was in place to report concerns and poor practice.
Staff had received training and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Best Interest Decision Making, where decisions were made on behalf of people who were unable to make decisions themselves. Other appropriate training was provided and staff were supervised and supported.
People received their medicines in a safe and timely way. People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Staff followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the care they needed.
Menus were individual and staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes and special diets that were required. Activities and outings were provided according to people’s preferences.
Staff knew the people they were supporting well. Care was provided by the staff with patience and kindness and people’s privacy and dignity were respected. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care.
People we spoke with said they knew the staff well that supported them and felt able to bring up any concerns. There was an effective complaints system in place to respond to concerns raised. The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided. There was regular consultation with people and/ or family members and their views were used to improve the service.
Staff and relatives said the management team were approachable. Communication was effective ensuring people and their relatives were kept up to date about any changes in people’s care and support needs and the running of the service.
There had been a restructure within the service with a cultural change driven by the organisation. This had led to several staff vacancies. These have been covered with high agency usage of late. However, this is set to improve by Christmas 2013 as a program of recruitment comes to an end. We found that medication was safely managed and that staff were trained appropriately in techniques needed to administer complex medication. We found that the service was able to listen to people if they wanted to raise concerns.