Archived: Ashington1

This inspection took place on 14 May 2015 and was announced. We announced the inspection because the person who used the service was sometimes out in the local community. We needed to be sure that the person and the registered manager would be there at the time of the inspection.

There had been a change in legal entity of the provider. The previous provider, “Stephen & Claire Clark” was a partnership. They had been operating the organisation for 15 years. In January 2014 two new directors joined the partnership and they applied to register as a new provider since they were now a limited company. They had been trying to register the new provider since January 2014. We had rejected their applications however, because they had either been incorrectly completed or because certain checks had expired due to the delays involved. We recently approved the new provider application in March 2015 for “Time to Care Specialist Support Services.” This is our first inspection of the service under the new legal entity.

The provider, Time to Care Specialist Support Services had two services, a care home; “Ashington1” and a supported living service, “The Bungalow.” We inspected the Bungalow at the same time as Ashington1. The same staff were used across both services and the same management structure was in place. Our findings for the Bungalow are discussed in a separate report.

Ashington1 provides care and accommodation for one adult who requires support to maintain their mental health. We have not included many details of the support provided to ensure we do not identify the person using the service.

Due to the size of the service and the recent change in legal entity, we have decided not to rate the service. We did not identify any breaches during the inspection. However, there were certain areas where improvements were required such as governance of the service.

There were systems in place to help reduce the risk of abuse. Safeguarding procedures were in place. In addition, risk assessments were documented which covered a range of areas such as accessing the local community and behaviour management.

Staff confirmed that relevant recruitment checks had been carried out before they started work. We found however that evidence of certain pre-employment checks, which had been carried out by the previous provider for two staff, was not available. The registered manager was in the process of renewing DBS checks for all staff that had been employed prior to 2014.

A medicines policy was in place. Staff told us that the person managed his own medicines. He informed us that he did not want any involvement with staff with regards to medicines management and said that he no longer needed to take any medicines. We checked his care plan and noted that this did not fully document that the person was managing their medicines. The care plan stated that staff should prompt the person to remind them to take their medicines.

The registered manager told us, and records confirmed that staffing levels were gradually being reduced. She said that the goal was to enable the person to live independently. The same staff were used for both the provider’s services. The person living at Ashington was only supported by male staff. The service used two health and social care consultants who advised on the specific care and support issues.

The person informed us that he did not have any concerns about the staff who supported him. He told us however, that he did not want or require any staff support. We spoke with the person’s relative who told us that staff were “kind” and “supportive.”

We did not have any concerns with how the staff member interacted with the individual. The staff member promoted the individual’s privacy and dignity. He spoke with the person in a respectful manner.

We saw that information relating to the person was stored on the computer. A plan was in place to document how support was being reduced, to enable the individual to develop their daily living skills and progress to managing all aspects of their life independently. We noticed however, that some of the information relating to his current support needs was difficult to locate. One of the external consultants had written the individual’s care plans in July 2014 and we noted that some of his needs had changed.

There was a complaints procedure in place. The registered manager informed us that no complaints had been received. She explained that the person regularly requested a complaints form, but chose not to complete them.

We spoke with the registered manager to ascertain whether surveys were carried to obtain the views of the person who lived there, their relatives and health and social care professionals. She told us that the individual refused to complete the survey. She said that they had not as yet devised a questionnaire to obtain the views of relatives and health and social care professionals. She told us that she would look into this issue.

The registered manager acknowledged that because of the small size of the organisation there was a need for improvement in the development of governance systems particularly if the suggested organisational expansion were to materialise. There were some operational systems in place to monitor the quality of care including individual monthly reviews of the person’s care. The registered manager informed us that the governance systems were evolving to ensure that effective processes were in place.