Archived: Flexible Support Options (Pengarth)

A high proportion of people who used the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to communicate with us verbally. Therefore, we spoke with staff about the service and observed their practices.

We found that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

We spoke with staff who were knowledgeable about medication. We concluded that medicines were safely administered.

We considered that suitable appraisal and supervision arrangements were not fully implemented at the time of our visit and staff did not always receive appropriate training to support their professional development.

We concluded that an effective system was not fully in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people.

People at the home were unable to communicate with us verbally because of their condition. We spoke with one relative to find out her opinion of the improvements which had been carried out. She told us, 'They've got new flooring and they've painted the bedrooms.' We found that the provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained. In addition, we considered that people were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment because the provider had a maintenance programme in place and repairs were carried out in a timely manner.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Her name appears because she was still a registered manager on our register at the time. A manager was in place at the time of our inspection. She informed us that she was in the process of applying to be registered with the Care Quality Commission.

We found that care and treatment was not always planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. For example, only one of the five people were checked overnight. We were concerned that people might not require the assistance they required if no system was in place to make sure they were comfortable and safe.

People were supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. We spoke with a speech and language therapist. She told us that she did not have any concerns about the way staff supported people to eat and drink. She informed us that staff contacted her if they had any concerns.

We noticed that repairs and maintenance were not carried out in a timely manner. One relative told us, 'It's shabby looking. Everything is cramped.' In addition, we spoke with two community nurses, a care manager from Northumbria Healthcare and an occupational therapist. They informed us that concerns had been raised regarding the suitability of the environment, specifically the bathroom and shower room.

A high proportion of people who used the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to communicate with us verbally. Therefore, we spoke with staff about the service and observed their practices. We also spoke with a member of Northumbria Healthcare's Infection Control team for her views on infection control procedures within the home. We concluded that there were now effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

We also spoke with a relative of one of the people who lived there by telephone. We wanted to find out her thoughts on the care provided at the home.

The relative told us, 'The care is very good. I couldn't give her all the attention that they give her.' We concluded that people's care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that protected them from unlawful discrimination.

The relative told us that the home was clean. However we found that effective systems were not in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

We found that that medicines were safely administered and were disposed of appropriately.

We found that people were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment because the provider had a maintenance programme in place.

Both staff and the relative with whom we spoke told us that there were enough staff to look after people properly. The relative said, 'By gum, they're always out and about. It amazes me the things they do. They go out for walks, lunches, shows and the shops.'

We found that staff received the appropriate training for their professional development and were able, from time to time, to obtain further relevant qualifications.