You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 September 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 8 and 13 August 2018 and was announced.

This service provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

People using the service lived in flats in a purpose-built building in the London borough of Lambeth. At the time of the inspection there were 48 people living within the service, 22 of which received personal care.

The service was registered with the CQC on 17 July 2017 and has not previously been inspected.

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.

People were not always safe as the service employed one staff member during the night period. People and staff expressed their concerns regarding suitable staffing levels at night. We made a recommendation the provider review their staffing levels, to ensure people were safe.

expressed their concerns.

People were protected against the risk of abuse as staff had a clear understanding of how to identify, report and escalated suspected abuse. Staff received ongoing training in safeguarding and confirmed risk management plans gave them clear guidance on mitigating identified risks. Accidents and incidents were reviewed and managed in a way that lessons were learnt to minimise the risk of repeat incidents.

People received their medicines as intend by the prescribing pharmacist. Where people required support with their medicine management, this was provided. People were encouraged and supported to access healthcare professional services to monitor their health and well-being.

People were protected against the risk of cross contamination as the provider had systems and processes in to effectively manager infection control.

People were supported by staff that received ongoing training to enhance their skills and experiences. Staff also reflected on their working practices through regular supervisions with senior staff. People received support from staff that had undergone robust pre-employment checks to ensure their suitability to the role. We received mixed feedback from people about staff that supported them. People confirmed not all staff were as caring and compassionate as they could be.

The service was aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People’s consent to care and treatment was sought prior to being delivered. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported to access sufficient amounts to eat and drink. We received mixed reviews about the evening meals provided by an external catering company. Issues identified by the registered manager were actioned and people were encouraged to share their concerns about the meals provided with the catering company in the form of a meeting, that took place during the inspection. People were supported to maintain their independence.

People’s care plans were person centred, and reviewed regularly with input from people. Activities were provided by the service and people were encouraged to participate. People were aware of how to raise a complaint. Complaints were fully investigated in a timely manner.

People’s preferences in relation to end o

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 6 September 2018

The service was not as safe as it could be. People and staff did not feel safe at night due to one staff member being on duty.

People were protected against the risk of harm and abuse as staff were aware of how to identify, report and escalate their concerns. Staff received ongoing safeguarding training.

People were protected against identified risks as risk management plans in place gave staff clear guidance to keep people safe.

People received their medicines as intended by the prescribing pharmacist.

People were protected against the risk of cross contamination as staff were aware of the providers infection control policy.

Accidents and incidents were managed in such a way to ensure lessons were learnt to minimise the risk of repeat incidents.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 September 2018

The service was effective. People received care and support from staff that underwent regular training to enhance their skills and knowledge.

Staff received ongoing support from senior staff through regular supervisions.

The manager and staff knew their responsibilities in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 legislation. People's consent to care and treatment was sought and respected.

People�s needs were continually assessed to ensure the care and support delivered remained effective.

People were supported to access sufficient amounts to eat and drink to meet their dietary needs and preferences.

People were supported to access a wide range of healthcare professional services to monitor and maintain their health and well-being.

The service sought guidance and support in collaborative working to ensure effective care and support was provided.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 September 2018

The service was caring. People received care and support from staff that treated them with respect and encouraged their independence.

People were treated equally and had their diversity embraced and respected. People were encouraged to make decisions, expresses their views of the care and support they received and had their decisions respected.

People�s confidential information was kept securely and only staff with authorisation had access to their records.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 September 2018

The service was responsive. People�s care was person centred and care plans gave staff clear guidance on how to meet people�s needs.

People were encouraged to participate in activities provided by the service.

People were aware of the providers complaints policy. Complaints were documented, investigated and action taken to reach a positive resolution.

People were supported to share information about their end of life preferences to ensure the service were responsive to their wishes.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 September 2018

The service was well-led. The registered manager had implemented systems and processes to monitor the oversight of the service.

The service notified the Care Quality Commission of safeguarding and statutory notifications in a timely manner.

People's views of the service were sought and action taken to address people's concerns were done so in a timely manner.

The registered manager sought partnership working with other healthcare professionals to drive improvements.