Archived: Roseberry Mansions

People using the service and their relatives gave us positive feedback about the service. They thought the service was well managed and in general they were happy with the support received.

People had their care needs, preferences and potential risks assessed. The system currently used by the service to record these needs and risks was complex and the gathered information was not always readily available to staff. The registered manager assured us that action would be taken to address this.

The service had systems in place to ensure people were protected from harm. These included safeguarding policies and procedures and appropriate recruitment practice. There were sufficient staffing levels to ensure people’s needs were met. Suitable health and safety and infection control practices were followed by staff. Medicines were managed according to the current guidelines and people received their medicines safely and as prescribed

Staff who supported people had appropriate skills, training and experience to provide effective and safe care. Staff were supported to carry out their roles through regular supervision, spot checks and yearly appraisal of their skills.

People were supported to live a healthy life. When required staff supported people to have sufficient food and drink and the support provided was in line with people’s dietary needs, cultural and personal preferences. When people’s health deteriorated staff ensured people had prompt access to relevant health services.

Care and treatment were provided in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People could choose how care was provided to them and staff asked for people’s consent before supporting them.

People were encouraged to be as independent as they could and be involved in making decisions about their care. People thought staff were caring and they said they had the opportunity to discuss their care needs and wishes in monthly meetings with their care worker.

Staff had good understanding of people’s individual needs, preferences and chosen ways of living. People were supported to adhere to their cultural and religious beliefs as well as be open about their sexual orientation or gender identity.

People were encouraged to give their feedback about the quality of the service they received. There were various forums at the service where people could express their opinion and it was listened to. The complaints policy was in place if people chose to make a formal complaint and these were dealt with promptly.

The management team provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. The management team and care staff knew what was expected from them. Staff felt the service was well led and management had been supportive and easy to approach when they needed to discuss any issue.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service delivered. The registered manager was proactive in addressing issues of concern and drove improvements to ensure lessons were learnt and the possibility of problems reoccurring was reduced.

External health and social care professionals gave positive feedback about the service. They said staff were caring and had sufficient skills to support people. They also said the management team was transparent and honest about the service provided to people.

We made one recommendation related to effective care planning.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 13 April 2016)

About the service: Roseberry Mansions is a supported living scheme that provides 40 flats for older people. At the time of our inspection There were 25 people receiving support.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service and we will revisit it in the future to check if they continue to provide good quality of care to people who use it.

Roseberry Mansions is an supported living scheme that provides 40 flats for older people.

The service does have a registered manager. 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. During the inspection the registered manager was not present. An interim manager assisted us with the inspection.

Staff understood people’s rights to make choices about their care and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

There was an accessible complaints policy which the registered manager followed when complaints were made to ensure they were investigated and responded to appropriately.

Staff were deployed in sufficient numbers to meet people's needs. Staff knew how to keep people safe. Staff knew how to identify abuse and the correct procedures to follow if they suspected that abuse had occurred.

Risks to people were identified and staff took action to reduce those risks. People were provided with a choice of food.

Care was planned and delivered in ways that enhanced people’s safety and welfare according to their needs and preferences. Staff understood people’s preferences, likes and dislikes regarding their care and support needs.

People and their relatives felt confident to express their views of the service and the management ensured these were addressed.

People could choose to be engaged in meaningful activities that reflected their interests and supported their wellbeing.

People were treated with dignity and respect. People using the service, relatives and staff said the management of the service were approachable and supportive.

There were systems in place to ensure that people consistently received their medicines safely, and as prescribed. People were supported effectively with their health needs.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We saw the service provided training on safeguarding adults to staff. Staff understood their roles in relation to this. People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills to ensure they could provide safe care. Staff were able to deal with foreseeable emergencies and had received first aid training, which was regularly updated.

There were arrangements in place to minimise the risks to people and staff acted in accordance with the recommendations of risk assessments. Staff were equipped with training in regard to safety procedures. There were regular fire drills and people had personal evacuation plans in place.

The registered manager was able to explain how the Mental Capacity Act and how this related to their service.

Is the service effective?

People's social, health and support needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in reviewing their care plans. People told us the service met their identified needs, they told us, 'Yes, staff speak to me about the care they provide, I do feel the care we talk about is what I get.'

Staff were provided with a range of training and had the necessary skills to ensure the provision of effective care and support.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. Staff were able to explain how they supported people to maintain their dignity and deliver services in a caring way. Care plans included details of how people liked to be supported. People told us the staff were, 'friendly' and one person said care was 'First class.'

Is the service responsive?

We saw that the service had a system in place to respond to complaints and comments. The service had asked people's view of the service and responded to what people told them. The records we read showed people's needshad been assessed before they signed agreements to receive the service. The records showed the service supported them to access activities, which were important to them. We saw that regular checks were made to ensure people had not changed their minds about what they liked to do.

Is the service well-led?

Staff were clear about the aims and objectives of the service and checked what people thought about the service. We saw that the service had responded to feedback from people and staff. There were systems in place to assess aspects of the quality of services and to take action where improvements were identified.