We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cabot House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Cabot House, you can give feedback on this service.
About the service
Cabot House is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to nine people. The service specialises in providing support to people with complex needs, learning disabilities and autistic people in one building. At the time of the inspection there were nine people living at Cabot house.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Right Support
Staff supported each person to have choice, control and independence. Nine people with differing needs and wishes living in one building did compromise individual choice which the staff did their best to manage. For example, we observed staff actively supporting people to do different things in different rooms. One person was looking at their tablet, another drawing and singing and a third being supported in the kitchen to bake cookies. Cabot is a large house and had a reasonable amount of space in shared areas. Each person had their own en suite rooms, which were personalised to meet their needs and preferences. For example, one person had a Disney themed room with all their favourite characters and Disney canvases on the walls, another person had decorative items that celebrated their family’s heritage. A person whose sensory needs meant they found it difficult to have things in their room, had a sparsely furnished room which still looked homely and comfortable. Staff focused on each person’s strengths and promoted what they could do, so they had a fulfilling and meaningful everyday life. This had improved since the easing of COVID -19 restrictions. Two people told us they were able to make decisions about their own lives and everyday life choices and we observed this in practice.
Right Care
We observed people receiving kind and compassionate care. People seemed at ease around staff and there were friendly conversations which involved a good deal of smiling and laughing. During the inspection we observed each person using individual and specific communication methods to communicate with staff. This included Makaton (a type of sign language), pictures, assistive technology, body language and written text. One staff told us. “Communication can be a challenge, but we are constantly learning.” People’s health needs were supported, one relative told us, “They had been very conscientious about the vaccinations and the dentist and are up-to-date.” The staff told us they prepared people for health appointments as they could be difficult for some people to understand and they worked with local health professionals to try to make it as easy as possible for each person.”
Right culture
The provider had a positive behavioural support (PBS) lead person who helped managers and staff understand the reasons people might behave in a certain way when distressed and discussed with staff ways to support them. Managers and staff knew how to analyse incidents and share the learning from them to reduce situations which cause people distress. People who had sensory perception and processing needs had health professional sensory assessments. Investment in learning for managers and staff was reflected in staff practice. People and most relatives told us they could talk to managers and staff freely. One person said, "I like (registered managers name), they are very good.” Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and the organisation. They said they were confidant to raise issues and knew they would be listened to.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (11 and 14 May 2021). The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
This was a planned focused inspection based on the previous rating. We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe and well-led key questions. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively. We also looked at the caring key question on this inspection.
We carried out an unannounced focused inspection of this service on 11 and 14 May 2021. Breaches of legal requirements were found in the following regulations. Regulation 12 (safe care and treatment) and regulation 17 (good governance.) The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. We undertook this inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Cabot House is a residential care providing accommodation and personal care to 9 people. The service specialises in providing support to people with complex needs, learning disabilities, autism and challenging behaviour.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Risks to people's health and wellbeing during the global pandemic of coronavirus were not consistently managed. People were exposed to the risk of contracting and spreading COVID-19 because the provider did not always follow government guidelines to keep people in care homes safe. This included guidelines on forming bubbles, isolation and visiting inside and outside the care home and infection control.
There were not adequate processes in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service. Systems had failed to identify that government guidelines and the providers own policies and procedures were not being adhered to. Processes were not in place to support safe visiting inside and away from the service. Staff were not always recruited safely.
Staffing levels were enough to meet people’s individual needs. People were supported by a consistent staff team who knew people well. Staff were kind and compassionate and interacted with people in a positive and person-centred way. People and their relatives told us they were happy with the service they received.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right Support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people.
This service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of Right support, right care, right culture.
Right support:
• The model of care and setting maximised people’s choice, control and independence and measures had been taken by the provider to promote this. The service was part of a local community and there were local amenities and public transport options.
Right care:
• People received person-centred care and support which promoted dignity, privacy and people’s human rights. People’s needs and preferences were known and respected. People had access to meaningful occupation and opportunities to form friendships away from the service. People had access to assistive technology to promote their independence. The provider had taken measures to ensure the environment was homely and people’s bedrooms were personalised with photographs and personal effects.
Right culture:
• The ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of managers and care staff ensured people led confident, inclusive and empowered lives. People were empowered to have choice and control over their lives. People consistently received person centred support to live meaningful and active lives. People had opportunities to form community connections and make choices about the support they received.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 13 June 2019)
CQC undertook a targeted inspection of Cabot House on 3 November 2020. The inspection was targeted to look at how the service was preventing and controlling infection. CQC have introduced targeted inspections to follow up on Warning Notices or to check specific concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.
At the inspection on the 3 November 2020 there was a breach of regulations. The provider completed an action plan after the inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection enough improvement had not been made and the provider was still in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
We undertook this targeted inspection to follow up on specific concerns which we had received about the service. The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about infection control. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.
We inspected and found there was a concern with how people were being supported to remain safe during the global COVID-19 pandemic, so we widened the scope of the inspection to become a focused inspection which included the key questions of safe and well-led.
The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has changed from good to requires improvement. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Cabot House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Enforcement
We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection.
We have identified breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in relation to infection control, safe care and treatment and good governance.
Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.
Follow up
After the inspection we wrote to the provider about some of the urgent concerns found during inspection. The provider sent an action plan that informed us of the immediate actions they had taken to address our concerns.
We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Cabot House is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to nine people living with a learning disability, including autism. At the time of inspection the service was supporting nine people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People understood why staff had to wear protective clothing because of the risk of infection from coronavirus. One person told us that they had their own mask they wore if they went out.
Relatives confirmed their family members were cared for by a staff team who knew them well and one relative felt that a particular member of staff, “Goes above and beyond and aside from being a professional is so genuinely caring”. Relatives felt the service was doing its best to manage in such difficult times.
As part of this inspection we also spoke with staff on the day and following the visit. Staff had received training in Infection Prevention and Control (IPC), however, personal protective equipment (PPE) was not always used safely. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of being consistent in the management of infection and told us that they were wearing full PPE including face shields.
There was a risk of cross contamination through the use of the laundry area for multiple tasks.
IPC practices were not always robust to ensure people’s safety or to prevent the risk of infection. This was communicated at inspection and the manager took appropriate action to address the concerns.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people.
The service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of Right support, right care, right culture. Our evidence is included in this report.
Right support:
¿ Model of care and setting maximises people’s choice, control and independence
Right care:
¿ Care is person-centred and promotes people’s dignity, privacy and human rights.
Right culture:
¿ Ethos, values attitudes and behaviours of leaders and care staff ensure people using services lead confident, inclusive and empowered lives.
Why we inspected
As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.
This inspection took place on 3 November and was unannounced.
CQC have introduced targeted inspections to check specific concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.
We have found evidence that the provider needs to make some improvements. Please see the Safe sections of this full report. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report
Enforcement
We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to discharge our regulatory enforcement functions required to keep people safe and to hold providers to account where it is necessary for us to do so.
We have identified breaches in relation to Infection Prevention Control. Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report. Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
The last rating for this service was Good (published12 June 2019).
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Cabot House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The people we met had complex learning disabilities and were not able to fully tell us about their experiences of life at the home. We therefore used our observations of care and our discussions with relatives and staff to help form our judgements.
The care service worked 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 can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
People’s experience of using this service:
Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse and were confident any concerns raised would be responded to by their manager. Relatives told us they felt people were safe at the service.
Risk assessments were in place to ensure people’s safety. Medicines were managed and administered safely. There were sufficient staff available to support people in their home and in the community.
There were a range of checks in place to ensure the safety of the home. Accidents and incidents were monitored to identify and address any patterns or themes. Learning from incidents was shared with the staff team. There were systems in place to manage infection control.
Staff received the right training and guidance to enable them to effectively support people. People’s complex needs were well planned for. Staff supported people to have good health care support from professionals.
Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions for themselves, their capacity to make these decisions had been considered. However, best interest decisions around certain restrictive practices were not always documented by the service in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
People were involved in choosing what they wanted to eat and were supported to have a healthy and nutritious diet.
Staff were aware of people's routines and preferences, and they used this information to develop positive relationships and deliver person centred care. Relatives we spoke with did not raise significant concerns, however one relative felt that the differing levels of challenging behaviour had a negative impact on some people that presented less challenging behaviour.
Staff described how they supported people by treating them with respect and dignity. Staff recognised when people were not happy and responded appropriately to support them. We made positive observations of staff interacting with people.
Relatives told us staff were caring. Staff were understanding towards people and people were comfortable in the presence of staff. People participated in chosen activities and accessed the local community, staff encouraged people to participate in things of interest to them.
Care plans were detailed. Relatives told us they felt involved in their family member’s care.
Relatives felt able to raise concerns with the staff or the registered manager directly.
Statutory notifications been completed to inform us of events and incidents. There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of care and support provided.
We have made a recommendation to the provider around the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published December 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Cabot House provides accommodation and personal care for up to nine people with a learning disability and complex needs, including behaviour that challenges. Six people were supported at the service on the day of our visit and were aged from 18 to 40 years. They required support with personal care and had additional communication needs. Accommodation was arranged across three floors of a large house. The service is one of three residential care homes run by Pathway Healthcare Ltd, a specialist provider of care, support and housing services.
The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 home is run.
We found the following areas of practice required improvement. The registered person had not completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Providers should have this information readily available to them through the internal systems they are required to have to monitor and improve the quality of their service. The registered person had not supplied the requested information within the deadlines we provided.
Care documentation was not always adopted, completed or updated in a timely manner. The provider’s policies and procedures about the care and support provided to a person were not followed or used consistently. There were detailed behaviour management plans in place and these included clear indicators and possible triggers to behaviours that challenged, methods used to diffuse situations and appropriate staff responses. However, documentation used in conjunction with the use of ‘safe holds’, to safely manage behaviours that might cause harm was not used by the management of the service.
People, their relatives and healthcare professionals were positive about the quality of care and support provided to people at the service. One relative told us, “They do really care for [my relative], I know they are happy. It’s a worry because they are very vulnerable, but I have no concerns at all.” Another relative said, “Staff know [my relative] really well. Their key worker is simply brilliant, so caring, but just so sensitive to needs and their change of moods.” People’s keyworkers worked to identify goals and achieve greater independence. The registered manager sought to involve people, relatives and healthcare professionals to ensure people received the support they required.
Staff had detailed knowledge of people’s needs and had the skills to provide support effectively. The registered manager carried out regular supervision sessions and appraisals. Staff felt well supported and understood their roles and responsibilities to ensure a quality service was given. Staff understood how to manage risks to people’s health and welfare and supported them to develop and reach their full potential. Staff had guidance on how to increase choice and control, reduce restrictive practice and improve quality of life. One member of staff said, “It can sometimes be very difficult if people are not using verbal communication. It is about getting to know the person very well and understanding the differences in their body language, for example one person uses the same movement to say different things. We use people’s individual communication methods and take the time to understand what people are telling us”.
People and staff celebrated achievements and milestones, including birthdays and cultural calendar events. A relative of a person said, “They had an open day, they had everything there; entertainment, an ice cream van, there was lots on. It gave us the chance to get involved and to meet each other.”
Staff supported people with the values of dignity and respect. Support plans contained documented assessments of people’s individual needs and the support they required. People continued to take part in activities they enjoyed and were encouraged to try new experiences based on their individual interests and abilities. There were sufficient numbers of skilled staff to meet people's needs and support activities. A relative said, “My daughter is vulnerable and always will be, so it’s important that she is safe and I do feel the staffing levels are impressively high.”
Staff understood how to protect people from possible harm. Risk assessments were completed to identify environmental risk as well as some risks that were specific to people's complex support needs. Risks in relation to meeting emotional needs and well-being were also considered and there was guidance in place for staff to safely manage risks and support people, for example to reduce their anxiety and potential social isolation. Staff ensured people accessed healthcare services for advice, treatment and support.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Mental capacity assessments and decisions made in people’s best interest were recorded.
People’s relatives and staff told us the registered manager promoted a person centred approach to care and support. They were complimentary about the registered manager who they said demonstrated strong leadership and provided a hands-on approach to the support people received. One member of staff said, “I always think of this as a happy house. It has a homely feel and the people come first. The manager is very good, very supportive.”
The provider and registered manager effectively used the audit systems in place to continually monitor the quality of the service to further improve the support people received and management functions of the service. The registered manager monitored incidents and accidents and put plans in place to prevent recurrence. The provider used a recruitment procedure that ensured people received support from staff vetted as suitable to work with vulnerable people.
We inspected Cabot House on the 27 October 2015. This was a focussed inspection looking and asked the question ‘Is the service safe?’ This report only covers our findings in relation to this topic. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Cabot House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Cabot House provides accommodation for up to nine people living with severe learning disabilities, complex needs and associated challenging behaviour. On the day of our inspection five people aged from nineteen to forty three years lived at the service.
A manager was in post but who was not registered with the Care Quality Commission. They had submitted an application which was in the process of being reviewed. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The person in day to day charge of the service is referred to as the manager throughout the report.
The home had been through a period when there was a lack of consistent managerial oversight. Since the new manager had been in post, they had identified areas where improvements could be made. Not all notifications were being made when required to The Care Quality Commission. We saw that actions had been taken but that it was recognised that further improvements were required to ensure people were safely supported.
Staffing levels were determined by assessing people’s support needs. There were staff vacancies at the time of our inspection. Agreed staffing levels had been maintained the majority of the time but on occasions when agreed staffing levels had not been achieved it was evident that this was due to last minute unforeseen circumstances and contingency plans were put into place in response. These shifts were all attempted to be covered by the manager of the home so that the home was kept to the level of staff required. Interviews were held to fill vacancies in line with the provider’s recruitment procedure. Expected leave was planned for and accommodated within the rota. Staff told us staffing was sometimes an issue due to sickness. We heard the provider had taken steps to try to cover these shifts but had not always been able to do so. People’s needs had been met and no harm had occurred as a result of them operating short staffed. However, we have assessed this as an area of practice that requires ongoing improvement.
Cover for staff vacancies and staff expected leave was planned for. Agency staff were used to cover shifts. Whenever possible the same agency staff were used on a regular basis. The use of agency staff had not impacted on the quality of support delivered to people. All agency staff underwent an induction to the service before they worked unsupervised and were aware of people’s needs.
People felt safe and were supported by staff who knew about abuse. People’s safety risks were identified, managed and reviewed. Risks had been appropriately assessed as part of the care planning process and staff had been provided with guidance on the management of identified risks.
People had their medication administered safely by staff who were trained and competent in their role.
This inspection was unannounced and was carried out on 15 January 2015. Cabot House is a service which is registered to provide accommodation for nine people with a learning disability who require personal care. On the day of our visit there were four people living at the home. Care is provided over three floors in a large house.
The service is run by Pathway Healthcare Ltd. There was no registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. An experienced manager who worked for the provider had been appointed to manage the home in October 2014 and was present at the inspection. Their application for registration was in process.
The last inspection of this home was in July 2014 and at that time we asked for improvements in two areas, with respect to care and welfare of people and quality assurance systems. The provider submitted an action plan telling us how they would meet the requirements of the regulations. At this inspection, we found these had been addressed, however further improvements were needed to quality assurance and we have made a recommendation about this.
People were safe and well looked after at the home. There were policies and procedures regarding the safeguarding of people and staff had a good awareness of the correct procedures if they considered someone who they provided care to was at risk of potential harm. There were suitable procedures in place to ensure medicines were stored, handled and administered safely.
People enjoyed the food at the home and were given choices. People had meetings where menus and food requests were discussed. People were supported to shop and cook. People’s specific dietary needs were catered for.
There were up to date and relevant care plans that reflected people’s individual needs. People were involved in care planning and in decisions about their care. The staff involved other professionals and families where appropriate. Care plans were personalised to reflect individual’s needs and preferences. Staff understood people’s care and support needs, and were kind and friendly. They treated people with dignity and respect.
Staffing levels were adequate to meet people’s needs safely and staff were competent and confident in supporting people’s individual needs. Recruitment procedures were being followed to protect people from being supported by unsuitable workers.
The CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The manager and provider understood when an application should be made and how to submit one. We found the requirements of DoLS were not being fully met, however the manager was aware of this and had a plan in place to address it. People’s human rights were properly recognised, respected and promoted. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and consent and how this affected people who lived there, however not all mental capacity assessments had been carried out where appropriate by the provider. We have made a recommendation about the need to address this.
There was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere in the home. Staff and people said they could speak to the manager if they had any concerns and felt involved in the running of the home.
The appointment of an experienced manager has improved the quality of the service. However, further improvements were needed to monitor and maintain standards and we have made a recommendation about this.
Cabot House provides support and accommodation to a maximum of nine people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at the home.
During our visit we spoke with three of the six people who lived at the home. Due to the nature of people's learning disability we were not always able to ask direct questions to people. We did however, chat with them and were able to obtain their views as much as possible. We also spoke with the Nominated Individual (NI), the providers compliance manager, a senior carer and two members of staff.
We used this inspection to answer our five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people who used the service and the staff told us.
Is the service safe?
We saw care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. All of the care plans we looked at had risk assessments in place to assist staff in minimising any known risks, however not all identified risks had assessments in place.
The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The providers compliance manager told us staff had received training with regard to the MCA and DoLS.
Is the service effective?
Each person had a plan of care and support. We saw support plans explained what support people needed from staff. Staff told us the care and support plans gave them the information they needed to provide the level of support people required.
We observed staff supporting people and care staff we spoke with were aware of people's needs and the preferences of people they cared for in how people wanted care to be delivered. We saw staff offered advice and support and enabled people to make their own choices and decisions as much as possible.
Is the service caring?
People were treated kindly and with dignity and respect by staff. We observed staff speaking to people appropriately and they used people's preferred form of address; We observed that staff were patient in their approach.
We saw care workers taking time to chat with people. They responded promptly to peoples request for assistance and had a good understanding of people's needs.
Is the service responsive?
We saw people had regular reviews of the care and support they received. We saw that care plans showed alterations to people's plans of care as people's needs had changed.
We saw people were able to participate in a range of activities. Staff told us that they encouraged and supported people to participate in activities to promote and maintain their well-being.
Is the service well led?
Cabot House did not currently have a Registered Manager. The provider's compliance manager was working from the home and was overseeing the day to day management of the service.
All of the staff and people we spoke with said they felt supported. We saw the home had systems to monitor and assess the quality of the service provided by the home. These including a number of audits including health and safety, medicines, cleaning and infection control. However not all of these audits were regularly completed and the homes quality assurance procedures were not yet imbedded in practice.
Staff meetings took place every one or two weeks and we saw minutes of these meetings. Staff we spoke with confirmed this and said the staff meetings enabled them to discuss issues openly with the manager and the rest of the staff team.