8 June 2017
During a routine inspection
At the previous inspection on 5 and 6 May 2016 we found four breaches of our regulations, an overall rating of requires improvement was given at that inspection. The breaches of regulation related to some practices for the storage and administration of medicines; some aspects of recruitment were incomplete because decisions about the employment of some staff were not recorded; some quality assurance checks were not fully effective and where the service had a legal obligation to notify the Commission of certain decisions and events, notification was not always made. We issued requirement actions for these breaches and the provider wrote to us telling us how and when the required improvements would be made. At this inspection we found the provider had met the previous requirement actions and addressed all of the breaches of regulation.
The service did not require a registered manager as the provider manages this service and another owned by her locally. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 provider was present throughout the inspection.
Three people lived at the service; we met and spoke with each of them. People told us that they liked living at the service, they were happy, they thought the staff were good at their jobs, were kind and cared about the people they supported.
There were safe processes for the storage and management of medicines. Recruitment processes were in place to protect people and ensure staff employed were suitable for their roles. Staff felt supported and listened to and received appropriate supervision. Staff had appropriate training and experience to support people well.
Quality assurance and management oversight of the service was effective, all statutory notifications required by the Commission were made when needed.
Staffing was sufficient and flexible to meet people’s needs. Staff knew how to keep people safe from harm, they were trained to recognise and report abuse, risks were appropriately assessed.
Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and applied these principles correctly.
People had personalised records detailing their care and support, including well developed support plans for their emotional and behavioural needs.
People were supported to access routine and specialist health care appointments. People told us staff showed concern when they were unwell and took appropriate action.
People enjoyed their meals, they were involved in deciding what they wanted to eat and went shopping to buy groceries. Some people helped to prepare meals.
Staff were caring and responsive to people’s needs and interactions between staff and people were warm, friendly, respectful and often made with shared humour.
Staff spent time engaging people in communication and activities suitable to their needs.
People felt comfortable about complaining, but did not have any concerns. People, relatives and visiting professionals had opportunities to provide feedback about the service provided both informally and formally. Feedback received had been reviewed and acted upon.
The provider had a set of values forming their philosophy of care. This included treating everyone as an individual, working together as an inclusive team and respecting each other. Staff were aware of these and they were followed through into practice.