Background to this inspection
Updated
19 August 2015
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is 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.
Before the inspection we looked at all the information we had about the service. This information included the statutory notifications that the provider had sent to CQC. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.
This inspection took place on 23 and 24 July 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection team comprised of an inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care.
During the inspection we looked at four care plans, five staff records, quality assurance records, accidents and incidents records, people’s feedback records, commissioners’ quality assurance report, correspondence, and policies and procedures. We spoke with three people using the service and five relatives about their experience of using the service. We also spoke with the manager of the service and four members of staff.
Updated
19 August 2015
This announced inspection took place on 23 and 24 July 2015. At our inspection on 03 June 2014, we found the provider was breaching one legal requirement in respect of arrangements to obtain the consent of service users who may lack capacity to make some decisions in relation to their care and treatment. The provider sent us an action plan telling us how they would address these issues and when they would complete the action needed to remedy these concerns. At this inspection we checked to see if these actions had been completed.
MCCH 101 Brook Street provides accommodation and short-term respite care and support for up to six adults who have a range of needs including learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection, there were three people on the first day and four people on the second day receiving personal care and support.
There was a registered manager in post. 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. There was a new manager in post at the time we visited.
People and their relatives said they felt safe and staff treated them well. We observed that people looked happy and relaxed. There were clear procedures in place to recognise and respond to abuse and staff had been trained in how to follow these. Risk assessments were in place and reflected current risks for people who used the service and ways to try and reduce the risk from happening. Appropriate arrangements for the management of people’s medicines were in place and staff received training in administering medicines.
The service had taken appropriate action to ensure the requirements were followed for the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) protect people who may not have the ability to make decisions for themselves.
Staff received an induction and further training to help them undertake their role and they were supported through regular supervision and appraisal. People received enough to eat and drink and their preferences were taken into account.
Staff knew people’s needs well and treated them in a kind and dignified manner. People’s relatives told us their family members were happy and well looked after. They felt confident they could share any concerns and these would be acted upon. Staff were able to respond to people’s communication needs and provided appropriate support to those who required assistance with their meals.
There was a positive culture at the service where people felt included and consulted. People commented positively about the service they received. There was an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service provided. The manager told us that the current provider held meetings with various stake holders including the relatives of people who used the services in relation to the proposed change to a new provider in September 2015 for a smooth transition of the service.