• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Armstrong House

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

3 Bassett Avenue, Southampton, Hampshire, SO16 7DP (023) 8076 6167

Provided and run by:
Autism Hampshire

All Inspections

11 February 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out a focused unannounced inspection on 11 February 2016 to check whether Armstrong House had taken action to meet the requirements of three warning notices we issued on 23 November 2015. This report only covers our findings in relation to these topics.

We undertook an unannounced comprehensive inspection at Armstrong House on 22 and 25 September 2015 at which breaches of regulations were found. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Armstrong House’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Armstrong House is registered to provide accommodation for up to six younger adults who have a learning disability or autism and who require personal care. At the time of our inspection two people were living at Armstrong House.

The home had a registered manager at the time of our inspection. 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.

Action had been taken to meet the warning notices issued following the inspection in September 2015. The registered manager and provider’s representatives were aware of key strengths and areas for development of the service. Quality assurance systems were in place using formal audits and regular contact by the provider and registered manager with people, relatives and staff.

People’s healthcare histories were known and they had access to healthcare services when needed. Medicines were managed safely.

Risks were assessed and managed safely. Plans were in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies and staff had received training to manage such situations safely.

There were enough staff with the necessary knowledge and competency to meet people’s needs. Contingency arrangements were in place to ensure staffing levels remained safe. Staff received appropriate training and were supported in their work.

22 & 25 September 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 22 and 25 September 2015 and was unannounced. The home provides accommodation and personal care for up to six younger people who have learning disabilities. There were three people living at Armstrong House when we visited.

The home did not 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.

At the last inspection in June 2014, we identified breaches of Regulations relating to staffing and safeguarding of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. We made two compliance actions. The provider sent us an action plan stating they were now meeting the requirements of the regulations.

At this inspection we found the previous concerns had not been met and also identified additional breaches of regulations. Monitoring systems were not effective in identifying areas for improvement and as a result, people’s safety and the service they received was compromised.

Emergency procedures were inadequate to ensure people’s safety. Routine checks on the home’s fire detection and management systems had not been completed. Not all staff were aware of what action they should take in the event of a fire placing them and people at risk.

There were insufficient staff employed with a high reliance on non-permanent care staff. Staff had not attended all necessary training and were not supported in their roles.

Staff did not follow legislation designed to protect people’s legal rights. Although adults people were referred to and treated as children.

Care files and individual risk assessments were chaotic and did not reflect the care and support people needed. Action to meet health needs had not always been taken. People were not supported to eat a balance healthy diet. People were not receiving adequate mental and physical stimulation.

Systems to manage medicines were inadequate and did not ensure people received all prescribed medicines safely. There were no systems to ensure people could receive ‘as required’ medicines such as paracetamol for minor illnesses or pain.

The views of people and relatives were not actively sought and people were not involved in decisions about the service.

The provider was recruiting new permanent staff and the recruitment process was safe and ensured staff were suitable for their role.

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We are taking further action in relation to the provider and will report on this when it is 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.

There was a breach of Regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

10, 16 June 2014

During a routine inspection

We met and spoke with the three people at the home. Due to people's communication needs in relation to their autism we observed their interactions with staff. We also spoke with one relative, two local authority care professionals, members of the provider's management team, two life skills teachers, a behaviour specialist, occupational therapist and four staff. We observed care in shared areas of the home and viewed records relating to care, staffing and the management of the home.

We considered five outcomes during this inspection. These being:

Outcome 2 Consent to care and treatment.

Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services

Outcome 7 Safeguarding people who use services from abuse

Outcome 14 Supporting Workers

Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of the service

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask.

Is the service safe?

People's safety was supported by staff who knew their role in safeguarding. They knew what types of abuse could occur and understood their responsibility to take action if they had concerns and would report to the manager.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. The DoLS apply to care homes and hospitals.

We found that the management of the service was not aware of the recent changes in the national policies regarding DoLS authorisations. They had not taken action to check if restrictions on people's movements were authorised where necessary.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to safeguarding people's rights in relation to DoLS.

Is the service effective?

People had individual care plans which were person centred detailing how people's needs should be met. Staff who worked with people were aware of their individual needs and styles of communication. They used the communication aids in place for people to help with this. Systems were in place to provide bank staff with information to work with people. Regular bank staff were used when possible to avoid unnecessary change.

Systems were in place to assess the needs and preferences of the people to ensure people were effectively supported. Care was planned in consultation with them where possible and based on the knowledge available to provide a service in people's best interests. Mental Capacity Assessments were being used for specific decisions when it was thought the people involved did not have the capacity to make a decision. Use of these assessments was being developed.

We found the frequency of staff individual supervision had decreased and the record of staff training was incomplete. This meant the service was not able to demonstrate that people were always supported by effectively trained staff.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to supporting workers.

Is the service caring?

People were responded to by staff who were attentive and concerned about their well-being. Staff were aware of people's individual needs and experienced staff in the service supported newer staff to understand and provide the support that people required.

Is the service responsive?

Systems were in place to respond to the views and preferences of people who used the service. We saw staff followed plans in place for people and responded to their day to day behaviour. Because the staffing during the day was provided on a one to one basis they were able to respond to individual needs within the home.

The views of people who lived in the service and relevant others were sought through the reviewing process. People living in the service mostly relied on non-verbal communication and were not able to tell us about how responsive the service was. Others we consulted included staff, a relative and care professionals who told us the service did respond to individual needs.

Is the service well-led?

Audits and systems were developing to assess and improve the service. The management had recognised that this required further development to ensure they could demonstrate the service was well led. Systems were in place to respond to incidents, accidents, comments and complaints.