Archived: Reed Pond House

This inspection took place on 20 and 21 June 2017, and was unannounced on 20 June. During our last inspection on 22 December 2016, we found that the provider did not meet the fundamental standards of safety and quality relating to capacity and consent, safeguarding people from abuse, staffing, fit and proper persons employed and good governance. We requested an action plan detailing how the provider would address these areas of concern, however they did not provide us with one. During this inspection, we found that although some improvements had been made in some areas, the service was still not meeting the required standards.

The service had a 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Reed Pond House provided a personalised, person-centred support service to the two women who lived there. They were in control of their day-to-day support and staff supported them to work towards their goals while developing the skills they needed to become more independent.

Staff supported people to maintain good health and eat healthier foods. People received their medicines as prescribed, although we have made a recommendation about ensuring that guidelines for the administration of ‘as required’ medicines be reviewed.

However, systems were not always operated effectively to ensure staff were suitable to work with people in need of support, and staff had not been trained in essential topics relevant to their role. People were not always safeguarded from the risk of abuse as the provider did not operate effective systems to protect people.

The registered manager had not kept their knowledge up to date of the statutory and regulatory environment in which they provided care. This was evident in their lack of understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the impact of these on the people who use the service. The registered manager could not demonstrate they understood the regulations, or appreciated the consequences of providing a service that failed to meet fundamental standards of quality and safety. They did not submit required notifications to the Commission of events that affect the service, or display the rating from their previous inspection.

Records continued to be unavailable or incomplete.

We found several breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, and one of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of full version of this report. Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to any concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Reed Pond House is a residential care home registered to provide accommodation and support with personal care for up to four women with learning disabilities. The service is provided by Infinity Social Care Limited in a large, detached house very close to Raphael Park in Romford, in the London Borough of Havering. There were two women living there when we inspected.

The service had a 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. However, the registered manager was not available to speak with us as part of our inspection.

We found the service was not well-managed and the registered manager did not have clear oversight or effective governance of the service. There were no systems in place to ensure the service was safe or providing effective, high quality care.

Staff had not been thoroughly checked before they started work to ensure they were suitable to support people, nor were there systems in place to protect people from financial abuse. Staff had not received appropriate training, supervision or support to ensure they supported people effectively. There were not enough staff to ensure people could undertake the activities of their choice, or to cover in emergencies without disruption to the people receiving support.

Risks relating to people’s support had not been appropriately assessed, nor risks relating to the provision of the service. Consent was not always sought in line with legislative requirements and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were not always fulfilled. Some people did not have their needs assessed and their care planned when they moved into the service, and we have made a recommendation about this.

Medicines were managed safely in the service, and people were supported to access healthcare services when they needed them and to eat a healthy, balanced diet. Staff supported people to undertake the activities of their choice, and the service provided information to people in a format that met their communication needs.

The service premises were clean and recently refurbished to a high standard. Staff were kind and had developed good relationships with people, as well as facilitated a good relationship between the people who used the service.

We found several breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.