You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 May 2018

We previously inspected this service in October 2017. This was because we had received notification of a serious incident which raised concerns regarding the assessment and management of risk in relation to people's mental health needs. At that inspection we looked at two of our questions; ‘Is this service safe and is the service well led?’ Our findings in October 2017 demonstrated there was a continued breach of the regulation in respect of the systems for monitoring the quality and safety of the service. Following the last inspection we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do to improve the service to at least good and by when.

The provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach. During this inspection we found that significant work had been carried out to improve the governance and quality assurance systems in the home.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

Rockmount Northwest is a residential care home for people with a mental health diagnosis. The service provides recovery and rehabilitation support for up to 20 adults with complex mental health needs, who may also have a learning disability. At the time of this inspection, there were 19 people living in the home.

Rockmount Northwest is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The home is situated in Rishton, near the towns of Blackburn and Accrington and is in close proximity to public transport links which gives easy access to either town by bus or train.

During this inspection, we found improvements had been made to quality assurance and auditing processes to help the provider and the registered manager to effectively identify and respond to matters needing attention. The systems to obtain the views of staff had been improved. People felt their views and choices were listened to and they were kept up to date with any changes. However, we noted that further improvements were required to ensure the systems were formalised to enable accountability and to ensure audits included records of care.

We found improvements were required to the knowledge and understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People's consent to various aspects of their care was considered and where required DoLS authorisations had been sought from the local authority. The registered manager had made appropriate referral to seek authorisations to restrict some people for their safety. However, the systems for assessing and recording mental capacity assessments were not in place.

We have made a recommendation about the assessing and recording of mental capacity assessments.

People were happy with the care and support they received and made positive comments about the staff. They told us they felt safe and happy in the home and staff were caring. People were comfortable in the company of staff and it was clear they had developed positive trusting relationships with them. Staff understood how to protect people from abuse.

The information in people's care plans was sufficiently detailed to ensure they were at the centre of their care. People's care and support was kept under review. Risks to people's health and safety had been identified, assessed and managed safely. Relevant health and social care professionals provided advice and support when people's needs changed.

The ho

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 May 2018

The service was safe.

People felt safe in the home and were protected against the risk of abuse.

Safe recruitment practices had been followed. There were sufficient staff available to meet people's needs.

Accident and incident were recorded including the care people received.

The management of people's medicines had improved. They were managed safely and administered by trained and competent staff. However, issues of dignity and privacy regarding the way medicines were administered had still not been addressed.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 May 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had received training to improve their understanding of the MCA, 2005 legislation and appropriate authorisations to restrict people had been sought. However, formal assessments of capacity had not been completed.

Staff were provided with training and professional development which enabled them to meet people's needs. People felt that staff were competent and could support them effectively.

The environment was maintained to provide safety and comfort for people. A system of reporting required repairs and maintenance was in place.

People enjoyed their meals. Their dietary needs and preferences were met.

People were supported appropriately with their healthcare and were referred appropriately to community healthcare professionals for ongoing support and review.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 May 2018

The service was caring.

Staff knew people well and good relationships had developed between people and the staff.

People were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends.

Staff respected people's rights to privacy, dignity and independence. Where possible, people were able to make their own choices and were involved in decisions about their day.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 May 2018

The service was responsive.

There was a significant drive to promote social inclusion. People were supported to take part in suitable activities inside and outside the home. Action was being taken to recruit an activities organiser.

Each person had a care plan that was comprehensive and reflected the care they needed and wanted.

People told us they knew who to speak to if they had any concerns or complaints and were confident they would be listened to.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 24 May 2018

The service was not always well-led.

The systems to assess monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service needed further improvements. Care plans had not been audited and systems for providing oversight on the registered manager had not been formalised.

There were systems in place to seek feedback from people living in the home, visitors and staff.

People made positive comments about the registered manager and staff. They felt the service was well managed.