Background to this inspection
Updated
20 January 2016
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 is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
The inspection took place on 4 November 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.
Prior to the inspection we looked at the notifications and the Provider Information Return that the provider had sent us and any other information we had received to plan the content of the inspection. Providers are required to notify the Care Quality Commission about specific events and incidents that include serious incidents and injuries which put people at risk from harm.
We contacted the local authority and Healthwatch for their views on the service. Healthwatch are an independent organisation, who promotes the views and experiences of people who use health and social care services.
We spoke to the manager, assistant, locality manager, senior support staff and two support staff. We looked at two people’s care and health files, two recruitment records, staff communication records. We looked at the management quality assurance records.
We used the Short Observational framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk to us.
Updated
20 January 2016
This inspection took place on 4 November 2015 and was unannounced.
The provider for 197 Henwick Road is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to four people, who may have a learning disability. On the day of the inspection there were four people living at the home.
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.
Although the provider had policies and systems in place for the safe administration of medication, we found they were not always followed, so could not always make sure people’s safety and well-being was promoted.
Staff were trained and understood their responsibilities in the prevention and reporting of potential harm and abuse. Checks had been made to ensure new staff were suitable to work with people who lived in the home before starting working. However we found the provider’s recruitment procedures were not followed as not all agency staff had signed to say they had completed an induction process to the home as per the provider’s policy.
Risks to people had been assessed and staff knew how to reduce risks for people they cared for enabling them to keep people safe. Staff understood their responsibility in dealing with and reporting accidents and incidents that may occur. The manager had systems in place to monitor them and reduce the likelihood of them happening again.
People enjoyed the food provided and were supported to eat and drink enough to keep them healthy. When people were supported at mealtimes, staff sat at the table with them, to make it a pleasurable experience and maintain the people’s dignity. When it was required people had access to other professionals, so maintaining their health needs.
We saw staff supported people with kindness, respecting their dignity and privacy whilst enabling them to keep as much independence as possible. As some people were unable to speak, pictorial alternatives were used, to allow people to make choices about their support.
People received care that was personal to them because their personal preferences were recorded in their care plans for staff to follow. Staff responded to changes in people’s wellbeing and supported them as necessary.
Quality audits were not always performed so placing people at potential risk.
People knew how to make a complaint and felt able to raised concerns with either staff or management. Complaints were responded to and monitored for future learning. The opinions of relatives and people living in the home were taken into account, for future development of the service.