You are here

Mencap Respite Service Liverpool Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 January 2019

This inspection took place on 11 and 13 December 2018. The first day of inspection was unannounced.

This was our first inspection of the service under its new registration.

Mencap Respite Service Liverpool is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Mencap Respite Service Liverpool is situated in a residential area of Belle Vale in Liverpool, with nearby shops and public transport. The service is based in a terrace of houses and consists of separate bedrooms and shared bathrooms over two floors. The service provides temporary accommodation for up to five people at the same time. People come and stay for short periods of time, ranging from a few days to several weeks.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service, particularly those staying for longer periods of time, were supported to live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People’s needs within the service varied and usually impacted upon the length of time that they were at the service. The staff team showed us good examples of how they adapted their support to people based on individual needs.

There was a service manager in post and a registered manager oversaw the service. 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.

When we inspected, staff, people using the service and their relatives were enthusiastic about sharing with us how highly they thought of the service. It was clear from our conversations that the service manager and their team were passionate about creating a caring, person-centred service that involved people and their relatives.

We found that there were some areas in which the service needed to improve, which mainly related to the safety of the service. In other aspects, we found and heard of very good examples of the way in which the service cared for and supported people and their relatives.

The service’s management and storage of medicines, particularly controlled drugs, needed to be improved , to ensure people and their medicines were kept safe.

We made a recommendation regarding this.

People had risk assessments and care plans in place to guide staff. We found that at times information about people’s risks and how the service had learned from incidents needed to be clearer.

We discussed with managers how some service safety aspects may benefit from review , such as the use of window restrictors.

Staff were aware of safeguarding responsibilities and had confidence in managers to address any concerns. Managers recorded and investigated concerns appropriately.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and they had been recruited appropriately.

The service was clean and bright and all relatives commented on this positively.

The service was working with the local authority to review their practice of following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We saw good examples of how people’s rights regarding decision-making were supported.

Staff felt well supported. Staff had access to regular training and supervision. We considered with managers that some further specialist training would be useful.

The service was adaptable to people’s needs. We considered with managers how some specialist considerations may help to give a more rounded assessment of people’s requirements.

The service showed us good examples

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 4 January 2019

The service was not consistently safe.

The service needed to improve the storage and management of people's medicines.

Risk assessments at times required further review or more detail to protect people robustly.

There were enough staff to meet people's needs and staff had been recruited appropriately.

Staff were clear about safeguarding responsibilities and had confidence managers would address any concerns.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 January 2019

The service was effective.

Staff worked with the local authority to support people's choice and decision-making under the Mental Capacity Act.

Staff felt well supported in their role through regular training and supervision.

There was a good focus on outcomes for people. We considered additional training could develop the service's specialism and assessments further.

Staff worked with people and their relatives to support specific nutritional needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 January 2019

The service was caring.

People and their relatives spoke highly of the service and the staff's kind, caring and respectful support.

People and their relatives were involved in the planning of care.

We considered with the team a few areas for further personalisation.

Staff handled discussions about people�s sensitive issues in a respectful and dignified way.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 January 2019

The service was responsive.

People's care was personalised to their needs.

Staff worked with people and families to update person-centred information.

The service listened to and acted on feedback and complaints.

People and relatives felt there were enough activities on offer, but made suggestions for further development.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 January 2019

The service was well-led.

The service and its team were led by a manager who was well respected by people, relatives and staff.

The service had an open, transparent and inclusive culture.

Team meetings took place regularly and these helped the service to develop.

The service involved people and relatives and was exploring further connections with the community.