Archived: Trevella

We spoke with two people who were using the service and the staff that supported them. People told us that they were happy with the service they received and that their care and support needs were being met. We found that the home was clean, warm and a variety of food choices were available. We found that people received care and support in a safe and timely manner.

The provider confirmed that staff had not being paid in a timely manner and that wage payments were also outstanding for a few staff members who had left their employment. The provider told us that there were several other debts outstanding and said that this was because they had not been paid for the service provided to three of the people who were using the service.

Following our inspection we spoke with local authority staff involved in funding people to live in the home. They told us that they would take action to address the fee payments outstanding.

We shared our concerns with local authority staff involved in the care of the people who lived at the home. Arrangements were put into place so that there would be no further admissions to the home until improvements had been made. The provider wrote to us in a timely manner and told us how these improvements would be achieved.

We returned to the home on 11 July 2013 to check on the progress the provider had made against the information they had sent to us. The findings of our inspection identified that compliance with regulations had been achieved. This also reflected the findings of local authority staff involved in monitoring the quality of the service provided at the home.

We served warning notices to confirm that whilst the provider had been in breach of regulations, this was no longer the case. The warning notices have reminded the provider of the importance of maintaining compliance with regulations.

There were three people living at the home at the time of our follow up inspection. We spoke with all of these people, the staff that were supporting them and a volunteer who was visiting the home.

People told us that they were happy living at the home and that they were involved in the on-going review of their care and support needs. This ensured that they received care and support in the way they preferred. People told us that they enjoyed the freedom that they were given to make their own decisions and were able to lead lifestyles of their choosing. Staff spoken with had a good understanding of any individual preferences that people had.

This was confirmed by people living at the home who told us that staff had a good understanding of their care and support needs and that they supported them in a respectful manner. Staffing levels had increased during day time hours and new staff had received relevant training to support people in a safe manner. We saw that care staff were available to support people to undertake activities outside of the home.

Effective systems were in place to identify and monitor the quality of the service provided at the home and to manage risks to people's safety, health and welfare. People living at the home were involved in this process, so that they had opportunities to discuss the quality of service they received.

People told us that they were happy living at the home and that staff supported them in a respectful manner. They told us that they enjoyed the freedom that they were given to make their own decisions.

People told us that they had opportunities to promote their independence and develop life skills whilst within the home. However, we found that staff were not always available to support people to undertake activities outside of the home in line with their care and support plans.

People told us that they were satisfied about the choice and quality of meals provided at the home. A person using the service told us 'We can cook for ourselves if we want, that's good.' However, during the afternoon on the first day of our inspection we found that people had a limited choice of food available for their evening meal.

People told us that they felt safe living at the home and that they would speak to the manager or staff if they had any concerns. A person using the service told us 'If I wasn't happy or was concerned about anything, I would speak to the staff, no problem.'

People had some opportunities to discuss the quality of service they received. However, improvements were needed. There were no effective systems in place to identify and monitor the quality of the service provided at the home and to manage risks to safety, health and welfare.