Archived: Overbrook

There was a registered manager in place at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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.

The provider was not fully engaged in the running of the home. They did not have an effective system in place to monitor the quality and safety of the home; the records relating to people’s care were not always accurate and up to date.

There was not enough staff available at the home to safely meet people’s needs. The registered manager had not always fully assessed the risks associated with people’s care and support.

People medicines were not always managed safely and they did not always receive their medicine in the correct way. Staff did not always protect people from the risk of infection.

People’s ability to make decisions was not assessed and staff did not follow legislation designed to protect people’s rights.

People did not always receive support from staff who had received the appropriate training to meet their needs.

Staff were task focused and did not always treat people with dignity and respect; or respect people’s choices and their privacy.

People’s records of care were not always personalised and staff were not always responsive to people’s needs.

People were not able to engage in individual activities and access the community on an individual basis. They did not receive appropriate mental and physical stimulation.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink; however, mealtimes were not always a social experience for people.

People’s families and staff had the opportunity to become involved in developing the service, however the provider did not always respond to feedback provided. The provider had a process in place to deal with any complaints or concerns, although the process was not always followed. People’s families were involved in discussions about their care.

Staff received an appropriate induction into their role and were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse. Recruiting practices ensured that all appropriate checks had been completed.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘special measures’.

Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration.

For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

During our inspection, we identified five breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have taken at the back of the full version of the report.

We also spoke with three members of staff and the manager who said they understood that people were able to make decisions for their selves and described the action they would take if people refused care. They were able to demonstrate appropriate communication skills to allow them to communicate effectively with people. We observed care in the communal areas of the home and saw staff interacting with people in a positive way. People were relaxed when with staff, who responded to people's needs in a balanced and supportive manner. One relative we spoke with said 'This feels like a proper home and they are all like family'. They added 'this could be a flagship of how care should be'.

We saw the home was clean and there were systems in place for managing infection control. Care staff, who were also responsible for carrying out cleaning duties, had received infection control training. One member of staff told us 'the cleanliness here is outstanding. We even sanitise door handles, light switches, the phone and remote control'. We found there was a duty roster system, which detailed planned cover and arrangements in place to manage short term absence. The provider had an effective quality assurance system in place and sought the views of the families of people who use the service through regular surveys.