Archived: The Cottage

Updated 19 January 2015

The inspection team consisted of one inspector. At the time of our inspection The Cottage provided accommodation and personal care to two people. We spoke with both people using the service, three staff, two healthcare professionals, a police officer, a family member, a paid representative (advocate) for a person who used the service, and the registered manager.

Through a process called pathway tracking, we looked at one person’s care records, spoke with two staff about the care the person received and observed the staff on duty when they provided support. Pathway tracking helps us understand the outcomes and experiences of selected people and the information we gather helps us to make a judgement about the service.

We corresponded with the inspector who had carried out the previous visit, and we checked the information we held about the service and the provider. We saw that no concerns had been raised recently and we had received notifications as required, for example, where safeguarding referrals had been made to the local authority to investigate and for serious injuries.

We reviewed all the information we held about the service which, told us about what had happened at the service since our last inspection. We also looked at the provider information return. This was information the provider had completed for us before our inspection. This helped us to decide what areas to focus on during our inspection. We looked at policies, care records and auditing processes. This was to gauge how the provider led and monitored the service.

This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?’

The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.

Updated 19 January 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The Cottage provides accommodation and personal care to two people. This inspection was unannounced which meant the staff and people who used the service did not know we were coming. At the last inspection in June 2013 the provider was compliant with the Regulations we looked at.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider. There were clear management structures offering support and leadership. Records showed that CQC had been notified, as required by law, of all the incidents in the home that could affect the health, safety and welfare of people.

People told us the staff understood them; they confirmed the staff were kind and thoughtful and treated them with respect. People spoke positively about the care and support offered to them.

People who used the service were encouraged to manage their independence. Where people’s needs changed, the provider responded and reviewed the care provided to ensure people were safe.

There were enough staff to support people safely and meet their needs. The staffing was managed flexibly to ensure people received their agreed care. This meant the provider was responsive to individual people’s support needs.

People using the service were consulted about the management of the service and could influence the service delivery.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. People were protected against the risk of restraint because the provider had made suitable arrangements for staff to respond appropriately to people whose behaviour may challenge others.

People were supported to take risks when they had the capacity to do so. The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 was being adhered to, to ensure staff made decisions based on people’s best interests. The Act was introduced to protect people who lack capacity to make certain decisions because of illness or disability.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People’s human rights were therefore properly recognised, respected and promoted.

The staff were kind and respectful to people when they were supporting them. There were policies, procedures and training in place to support staff to respect people’s privacy and dignity. Staff were able to describe examples of where they had responded to what was important to individuals living in the home. People knew who to speak to if they wanted to raise a concern and there were processes in place for responding to concerns.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Action plans, in response to audits and incidents were followed up and ensured continuous improvement. Staff were supported to challenge practice when they felt there could be improvements meaning there was an open and transparent culture in the home.