This inspection took place on 03 June 2015 and was unannounced.
Tasker House provides care and support for up to 26 older people with a wide range of needs for personal care and support. This includes people who may have social, physical and dementia care needs. There were 25 people using the service when we visited.
The service had a manager who had been in post for four weeks at the time of our visit, so they had not yet registered as a manager with the Care Quality Commission. They were being supported by the provider and the previous manager who had been in post for 17 years. 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.
Staff were trained in how to protect people from abuse and harm. They knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to raise an alert if they had any concerns.
Risk assessments were centred on the needs of the individual and action was taken to keep people safe, minimising any risks to health and safety. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety.
There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels were regularly calculated and adjusted according to people’s changing needs.
Staff had been recruited using a robust process, with effective recruitment checks completed.
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely and correctly. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant records that were accurate.
Staff received appropriate support and training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They received regular one to one supervision sessions and an annual appraisal to ensure they were supported to carry out their role.
People’s consent to care and treatment was sought in line with current legislation. Where people’s liberty was deprived, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] applications had been approved by the statutory body.
We observed that staff sought and obtained people’s consent before they helped them. When people declined, their wishes were respected and staff checked again a short while later to make sure people had not changed their mind.
People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to ensure their dietary needs were met.
Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with their GP and other healthcare professionals as required.
Staff communicated effectively with people, responded to their needs promptly and treated them with kindness and compassion.
People’s personal views and preferences were responded to and staff supported people to do the things they wanted to do.
People received care that was responsive to their needs and centred around them as individuals.
People were at the heart of the service and they were supported to take part in meaningful activities and pursue hobbies and interests.
The home had an effective complaints procedure in place. Staff were responsive to concerns and when issues were raised these were acted upon promptly.
The service was well-led and staff were well supported and motivated to do a good job.
We saw that people were encouraged to have their say about how the quality of services could be improved and were positive about the leadership provided by the manager and the provider.
Effective quality assurance systems were in place to obtain feedback, monitor performance and manage risks.