You are here

Archived: 136 Warminster Road - SHSC Respite Service Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 15 June 2016

The inspection took place on 19 May 2016 and was unannounced. The home was previously inspected in November 2014 when we found two breaches of Regulations. These were regarding the safe management of medicines and shortfalls in care records. Following that inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to these breaches. This inspection was undertaken to check that they had followed their plan, and to confirm that they now met all of the legal requirements.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link

for '136 Warminster Road' on our website at www.cqc.org.uk'

At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider had addressed both breaches found at the last inspection.

Warminster Road provides short stay respite accommodation for up to five adults with learning difficulties. Three beds are located within the main building, which is shared with the local council. The remaining two beds are located in a neighbouring on-site property known as 136a Warminster Road, which is a detached house.

The service did not have a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection, but an acting manager had recently been appointed. They told us they were hoping to submit their application to be the registered manager shortly. 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.

We were unable to speak with people using the service as they were either away from the service or we were unable to communicate with them in a meaningful way. Therefore, we observed how staff supported people and following the inspection visit we contacted three relatives to gain their opinion of the service provided. All the people we spoke with said they were very happy with the care provision.

We saw there were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about safeguarding vulnerable people and were able to explain the procedures to follow should an allegation of abuse be made.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet people’s needs and enable them to follow their interests.

The company’s recruitment system helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing staff. We found new staff had received a structured induction and essential training at the beginning of their employment. This had been followed by refresher and specialist training to update and develop their knowledge and skills.

People received their medications in a safe and timely way from staff who had been trained to carry out this role.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The staff we spoke with had a good understanding and knowledge of this subject and people who used the service had been assessed to determine if a DoLS application was required.

People were fully involved in choosing what they wanted to eat and drink. We found people were also involved in shopping and preparing meals.

Care files reflected people’s needs and preferences, as well as any risks associated with their care. These provided staff with detailed guidance about how to support people and keep them as safe as possible. Care plans and risk assessments had been reviewed and updated each time the person returned to the home to ensure there were no changes in their needs. We saw staff enabled people to follow their preferred interests and routines, such as attending a day centre, and be as independent as possible.

The provider had a complaints policy to guide people on how to raise concerns. There was a structu

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 15 June 2016

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to recognise and respond to suspected abuse and they had a clear understanding of the procedures in place to safeguard people.

Care records identified potential risks and provided staff with guidance on supporting people.

We found recruitment processes helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff.

Systems were in place to make sure people received their medications in a safe and timely manner.

Effective

Good

Updated 15 June 2016

The service was effective

People were supported in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff promoted people�s ability to make decisions and knew how to act in their best interests if necessary.

Staff had access to a structured induction and training programme, and felt well supported by the management team.

People were involved in planning and cooking meals which met their needs and preferences.

Caring

Good

Updated 15 June 2016

The service was caring.

People received support from staff who were responsive to their needs, kind and caring. Staff communicated with people in a friendly and inclusive manner that reflected their communication needs.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect while offering privacy and encouraging independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 15 June 2016

The service was responsive

Care records reflected people�s individual needs and preferences, and had been reviewed as required.

People had access to activities and stimulation that was tailored to meet their individual needs and preferences.

People were made aware of how to raise concerns and systems were in place to manage any concerns received.

Well-led

Good

Updated 15 June 2016

The service was well led.

There were systems in place for monitoring the quality of the service provided.

Questionnaires had been used to ask people if they were happy with the care and support provided and how the home was run.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and had access to policies and procedures to inform and guide them. Although these were not always up to date on the internal intranet.