Archived: Southside Partnership - 227 Norwood Road

At our previous inspection, on 23 January 2015 the service had not met all the regulations we inspected. We found breaches which relate to premises and equipment and the registered manager conditions. We issued two requirement notices for these breaches.

At the inspection on 29 July 2015, we followed up on the outstanding breaches of the regulations. We found that action had been taken to address the breach regarding the premises and equipment. However, the provider had not made sufficient improvements in relation to the registered manager conditions.

At this inspection, we found that actions had been taken by the provider to address the breach related to the registered manager conditions. At the time of inspection, the service had a registered manager in post. The registered manager was also managing other services for the provider. 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. The service had a deputy manager who was responsible for managing the day-to-day running of the service.

Staff recognised signs of potential abuse to people and supported them to stay safe from harm. People’s individual risk assessments were in place and addressed the support required for people in crisis. There were enough staff at the service to support people in their home and in the community. Staff assessed people’s ability to manage their own medicines and supported them to understand what medicines they were taking.

Staff were knowledgeable about the support people required with their care needs. They received regular supervision and appraisal, which provided them with opportunities to discuss their professional goals and develop in their role. Staff had support with their training needs and attended refresher courses as required.

We found that the staff team had limited understanding about the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 principles as they had not attended the MCA training. We recommended the service to seek advice and guidance from a reputable source, in relation to the requirements of the MCA training for social care staff.

People had a signed agreement with the provider consenting to some restrictions at the service. Staff monitored people’s food intake to ensure that their nutritional needs were being met. People had access to health professionals and staff reminded them about the medical appointments they needed to attend.

People told us that staff were kind and respectful. People had good relationships with staff that attended to their needs with care. Staff respected people’s privacy and asked them when they wanted to be supported. The service supported people to increase their social contacts and develop relationships in the community. Staff provided people with information about the group activities available and people chose if they wanted to attend them.

People were involved in the assessment and planning of their care. Regular review meetings were held for people to monitor their progress and agree on future goals to increase their independence. People raised their concerns to the staff team that provided them with opportunities to question practice as necessary. The organisation had asked people and their relatives for feedback about the services provided for people to ensure their involvement in developing the service.

The management team had supported staff to carry out their responsibilities as required. Staff told us they were provided with on-going support and advice as necessary. The service encouraged staff to take-on additional responsibilities, including leadership tasks. This ensured staff’s on-going development and learning of new skills. Effective quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the care provision at the service. The registered manager and staff had carried out regular checks to ensure that the environment was safe for people. Staff supported people to keep their records safe and only shared people’s personal information with other professionals involved.

People using the service were given the opportunity to consent to their placement before moving to the service and were involved in developing their support plans so they could consent to the support provided. For those that were unable to consent the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

People were provided with support plans tailored to their needs, and there were regular meetings to discuss the progress they had made. There was evidence that people were involved in all decisions regarding the support they received.

Medicines were safely stored and safely administered. Administration of medicines was recorded on a medicines administration record and we saw evidence that these had been completed appropriately.

The building provided a safe and secure premise for people to stay at, and at the time of our inspection there were no outstanding maintenance requests.

At the time of our inspection there had been no complaints received in the last year. There was a complaints process in place and staff were able to demonstrate how they would support an individual to complain if they so wished.

We spoke with three out of the four people who were using the service. All three told us they were aware of their care plans and associated review processes, and had been involved in the development of them.

Staff spoken to on the day felt well supported by their manager. Records showed that all staff members were up to date with their mandatory training, and staff had a good working knowledge of the service's policies and procedures. There was evidence of staff being supported to continue with their professional development.

Records on the day showed the quality of service provision was regularly monitored, and learning from incidents was incorporated into service delivery.