We inspected Battersway Court on 28 and 31 October 2016. This was an announced inspection. We informed the registered provider at short notice (24 hours before) that we would be visiting. We did this so that staff could reassure and prepare one person who suffered from anxiety when official people visited the home. As the location is a small care home for people who can be out during the day we also needed to be sure that someone would be in. The home was last inspected in November 2013 and was meeting the regulations we inspected at the time.Battersway Court provides accommodation and care for up to four people. People living at the home have learning disabilities. On the day of our inspection, three people were living at the home. The home is located within a quiet residential area. People lived in an apartment above the registered provider's home. Each person had their own bedroom. Communal space consisted of a large lounge area and kitchen with dining area.
The home was not required to have a registered manager as the provider managed the home. 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.
People told us they liked living at the home, they were happy, they liked the staff and the staff were kind. Our inspection found that whilst the service offered people a homely environment and their care needs were being supported; there were shortfalls in a number of areas that required improvement. Robust recruitment procedures were not in place, the environment was not always safe, there was no system to support staff development, the provider had failed to submit a safeguarding notification to the Care Quality Commission and the provider did not have governance systems in place to assure quality of care.
Battersway Court was a family run home were the registered provider lived on the premises. Apart from the registered provider the home only employed one full time member of staff, the deputy manager. The deputy manager was responsible for the day to day running of the home. Sickness and absence due to holidays were covered by part time staff who were related to the provider and only covered on a casual voluntary basis. We have made a recommendation that the provider keep staffing levels under review.
People were at risk of receiving care from unsuitable staff because robust recruitment procedures were not being applied. People were supported by the registered provider and deputy manager who had received training and support for their role. However, casual staff had not received any formal training. There was no system in place for ensuring that staff training was kept up to date and training was reviewed in respect of changing needs of the people living in the home. There was no system for ensuring staff received supervision, support or professional development.
Although staff had the knowledge to protect people from abuse there had been a failure to report a safeguarding notification to the Care Quality Commission so that it could be investigated properly.
The provider did not have effective systems in place to make sure the quality of service they provided was regularly monitored and assessed to prevent inappropriate or unsafe care. The home was not actively seeking the views of a range of stakeholders in order to learn and improve.
People were administering their medicines. The home had provided lockable storage facilities within people's bedrooms, assessed people's understanding and carried out risk assessments which were regularly reviewed.
People's rights were protected by the correct use of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. People's health care needs were met through regular healthcare appointments and liaison with health care professionals. People were consulted about their choices for meals.
There were systems in place for maintenance of the building and equipment, and to monitor the safety of the home. However, some aspects of the environment were not safe. There were no records of risk assessments carried out in relation to building work at the home and the absence of window restrictors.
People's individual risks were identified and risk assessment reviews were carried out to keep people safe. Staff supported people to reach an appropriate balance between supporting choice, independence and appropriate risk taking.
Care and support plans were personalised and reflected people's needs, wants and interests. People's care plans clearly outlined every aspect of the person's life and reflected their wishes and preferences. This information helped staff to get to know the person better and provide the care and support they required. People were supported to be as independent as possible.
People told us they were supported to pursue a range of hobbies, activities and individual interests. For example, shopping, gardening, making toy models, jigsaw puzzles and attending a variety of services such as coffee mornings, activity clubs and disco’s.
We made one recommendation and found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report. We also made a recommendation about medicines management.