Archived: Sue Starkey House

We spoke with six people using the service, three relatives or friends and four members of staff which included the registered manager. All the people we spoke with told us they thought there had been a positive change in the way the service was run. One person said, 'the staff don't leave you waiting for as long as they used to.' Another person told us they take part in activities such as going to the cinema or the 'take away' food night.

Each person at Sue Starkey House had been assigned a key-worker who was responsible for understanding people on an individual level. This meant the provider was able to give care and support in a way that was personalised.

We found that people were protected against the risks associated with the administration of medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to store medication and manage the recording of medicines.

The provider had taken action to protect people from unsafe or unsuitable equipment.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

The provider kept accurate personalised care and support records for each person who used the service secure and confidentially.

A person who used the service said, 'I like being here, I have my own flat. Some of the carers are good and some of them aren't so good.' A family member told us, 'my relative likes it there. The quality of care seems good.' Another person told us, 'they are supposed to give me an hour but are only ever here for fifteen minutes.'

Staff told us they felt supported. We were told staff were able to attend courses to further their knowledge.

The staff we spoke with understood how to safeguard vulnerable adults and how to raise concerns about the people they supported. People told us they felt safe at Sue Starkey House. One person told us, 'I feel safe here. I know nothing will happen to me.'

Sue Starkey House had a system to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

During our inspection we found that people thought the staff turnover was high and they told us they would like consistency. They felt the staff did not get to know their preferences or care needs very well.

We found records and medication recording charts were inconsistent. Unused medication waiting to be returned to a pharmacist was found in an unsecured cupboard.

Information relating to people's care was not securely stored .

People told us they would report any concerns or abusive behaviour to the manager.

Staff were able to tell us how they offered people choices and ensured people were safe. Staff also told us they felt well trained and supported by the manager and senior staff.