Background to this inspection
Updated
15 June 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
The inspection took place on 19 May 2016 and was unannounced. This meant that the home’s management, staff and people using the service did not know the inspection was going to take place. The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors.
To help us to plan and identify areas to focus on in the inspection we considered all the information we held about the service, such as notifications from the home. On this occasion we did not request the provider to complete a provider information return [PIR]. This is a document that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make.
At the time of our inspection there were five people using the service. We spoke with one person staying at the home and spent time informally observing how staff supported people. We also spoke with three relatives to ask their opinion of the service provided to their family member.
We spoke with the acting manager, deputy manager and the assistant service manager, as well as a team leader and three care workers. We looked at documentation relating to people who used the service and staff, as well as the management of the home. This included reviewing two people’s care records, staff rotas, training records, staff recruitment and support files, medication records, audits, policies and procedures.
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 structured system in place for recording the detail and outcome of any concerns raised.
The provider used questionnaires to gain people’s opinion of the service provided.
We found a system was in place to check if policies and procedures had been followed, and the premises were safe and well maintained. However, areas identified as needing improving did not always have planned timescales for completion. This was being addressed at the time of our inspection.