Cintre House

Updated 12 June 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.

The inspection took place on 15 May 2018 and was unannounced.

The inspection was undertaken by two Adult Social Care Inspectors. Prior to the inspection we gathered information available to us including the PIR. The Provider Information Return is a form completed by the provider to tell us how they are running the service and any improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed notifications; these are information about specific events the provider is required to tell us about by law.

We spoke with two people using the service and one relative. We gave opportunity for all of the people using the service to speak with us but some people declined. We spoke with two members of staff as well as the registered manager. We looked at records for three people, as well as other records relating to the running of the home such as audit, complaints and medicines records.

Updated 12 June 2018

Cintre is a residential care home for up to seven people with mental health needs. Some people may also have learning difficulties. There were five people living in the home at the time of our inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The individual domain Effective was rated Good at our last inspection but at this inspection it was rated Requires Improvement. This is because we found that although staff and the registered manager understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), some improvement was required in the recording of decision making and gaining consent. We have recommended that the service reviews its practices to ensure they are fully complying with the requirements of the Act.

The service was safe. People told us they felt safe and that there was always staff available if they needed them. People received safe support with their medicines, these procedures had recently been reviewed following some administration errors identified by the registered manager.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. It was evident that positive relationships had been built between people and staff. Staff treated people with dignity and respect

The service was responsive to people’s needs. Staff understood people well and knew the signs to look for that people’s mental health might be deteriorating. People were able to follow their own hobbies and interests.

The service was well led. There was a registered manager in place supported by a deputy. Staff told us senior staff within the organisation were approachable and they felt able to raise concerns and voice their opinions.