You are here

Archived: 6 Durlands Road

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 31 January 2013
Date of Publication: 2 November 2017

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 31 January 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider did not have an effective system in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the services provided and identify, assess and manage risks to the welfare of people who use the service and others.

Reasons for our judgement

As part of quality monitoring, the home had monthly quality monitoring visits. These visits identified key improvement actions that the home had to undertake. For example, the last visit was in January 2013 and it highlighted a number of actions the home had to undertake such as supervision and appraisal of staff. We found that the home had taken actions. Supervision dates had been recorded in the diary.

The registered manager had recently (January 2013) introduced weekly quality checks in the home. We were shown an example of these checks which included health and safety checks, cleanliness.

The home had been without a registered manager for 12 months, during this time the provider company had changed legal identity and a new management team including management policies and procedures had been put in place. During the absence of a registered manager, senior carer’s had been identified to be in charge of the daily life of people. We spoke to staff who told us that during this time they had focussed on the people’s needs and had “tried their best to keep up with the changing paperwork” and added “the paperwork was new and we didn’t know what to do with it at times.”

The home did not undertake any annual surveys of people who use the service or their relatives. During our inspection, we sought the views of representatives of people who used the service. They told us that their views were not always acted upon. Two relatives told us that a number of times, their member of family had come home with other people’s clothing items. They had complained twice about this. We spoke with two relatives who told us they had some concerns about how the home was run. They had previously raised these with the manager and whilst some of the issues were resolved, a few months later the same issues arose again. They told us that because the home did not have a registered manager, there were “substantial gaps” in the service. We spoke to the new manager who had been recently appointed and she told us that she was making contact with relatives to seek their views of the service and identify ways it could be improved.