Archived: Guinness Care Southlands

The inspection was announced. We gave the registered manager 48 hours notice of the inspection. We did this to ensure key staff were available for the inspection. At the time of the inspection the service was providing a service to 58 people and the staff team was 24.

There was a registered manager in post at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. 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 people received was safe. Staff understood their role in safeguarding people from harm and knew how to raise any safeguarding concerns they had witnessed or been told about. There were safe recruitment in place to ensure unsuitable workers were not employed. Any risks to people’s health and welfare were assessed and management plans put in place to reduce or eliminate that risk. There were enough care staff employed to meet people’s care and support needs.

The service was effective because staff had been trained to meet people’s needs. Staff had supervision sessions with the registered manager or senior staff where there work performance and training needs were assessed. The staff were aware of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood their roles and responsibilities in supporting people to make their own choices and decisions.

When we inspected the service in April 2015 we had found that people received a very caring service. At this inspection we found that people still received a very caring service and continued to be outstanding. Care staff took time to listen and talk to people, they were described as going “above and beyond” what would be expected and there are examples in the main body of the report. People were treated with dignity and respect. People were involved in planning the care and support they received.

The service was responsive to people’s individual care and support needs and the service they received was personalised. Staff providing care and support were familiar to people and knew them well. Feedback was gathered from people regarding their views and experience of the service they received. Any complaints or concerns raised about the service were handling correctly in line with the registered providers complaints policy. The service strived to make changes in response to people’s views and opinions.

People received a service that was well-led because the registered manager and other senior staff provided good leadership and management. The vision and values of the service were communicated and understood by staff. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. The quality of service people received was continually monitored and any areas needing improvement identified and addressed.

This was because the care some people received was not regularly reviewed to ensure it was suitable and met their needs. Staff were not provided with regular formal supervision. The quality assurance system in place highlighted the shortfall in people's care reviews. However these were not followed up swiftly by the provider.

The provider sent us an action plan that detailed how they would achieve compliance with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) Essential Standards of Quality and Safety. During this inspection the actions the provider told us they were planning to take, had been implemented within the service.

We did not speak with people who used the service during this follow up inspection. However we spoke with the manager and team leader and crossed referenced people's care records with the monitoring systems in place. This was to ensure they were reflective of the improvements made.

The improvements the provider made, meant people who used the service, received regular care reviews and were supported by staff who received formal supervision to effectively undertake their role. A robust quality system was in place to ensure any service deficits identified, were promptly followed up by the provider and/or manager.

Two people felt they were not always getting the service they paid for and felt on occasions certain staff were rushed in their approach.

People's care records set out how to assist them to meet their needs. However the care records were not regularly reviewed and updated .This meant they may not show how to provide people with the assistance they required.

People were protected because there were systems in place to minimise risks and to safeguard them from abuse.

People were protected from the risks of unsuitable staff being employed. There were recruitment procedures in place that aimed to ensure only suitable staff were employed to work with people who used the service.

The staff felt supported in their work by the acting manager and team leaders. However the provider's own supervision policy that required staff to have regular one to one staff supervision meetings with a supervisor had not been kept up to date. Over the last twelve months the majority of the staff team had only one or two supervision meetings to review their work and performance. This could impact on the overall of servic people received.