Archived: Co-operative Terrace

Updated 17 March 2016

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.

This inspection took place on the 15 January 2016 and was announced. We gave notice of the inspection because we needed to seek the permission of the person who used the service and let them know that we would be visiting them at home. We also needed to ensure records would be accessible. The inspection was conducted by one inspector.

Prior to the inspection, we reviewed the information we held about Chad Ltd – Cooperative Terrace, including any statutory notifications which the provider had sent to us and any safeguarding information we had received. Notifications are made to us by providers in line with their obligations under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. These are records of incidents that have occurred within the service or other matters that the provider is legally obliged to inform us of.

In addition, we contacted North Tyneside local authority’s adult safeguarding team to obtain their feedback about the service. All of this information informed our planning of the inspection. On this occasion we did not ask the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to the inspection. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

As part of the inspection we spoke with the person living at the home, we spoke with their relative, two members of the care staff team and the registered manager who is also a director of the company. We reviewed the person's care record and information kept regarding the management of the service. This included looking at four staff files and any records relating to the quality monitoring of the service.

Updated 17 March 2016

Care Homes for Adults with Disabilities (CHAD) Limited – Cooperative Terrace is a residential care home set in a two storey terraced house in West Allotment. The service provided accommodation, care and support to one adult with a brain injury. This inspection took place on the 15 January 2016 and was announced.

We previously inspected Cooperative Terrace in April 2014, at which time the service was compliant with all regulatory standards.

The service had 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.

The person using the service told us that they felt safe with the support from the care staff. Policies and procedures had been recently reviewed and amended. There were safeguards in place to protect people from harm and to ensure staff understood their responsibilities.

Records were kept regarding incidents and accidents. These were investigated and reported on as necessary in a timely manner. Analysis by the registered manager was used to review care needs, risk assessments and implement preventative measures.

The service managed risks associated with the health, safety and wellbeing of the person who used the service, including carrying out regular checks of the premises and equipment in line with their legal responsibilities as the landlord. Individual care needs had been assessed for all aspects of the person’s life and we saw evidence which demonstrated this was reviewed and monitored regularly.

Medicines were managed safely and medicine administration records were detailed and accurate. Medicine was stored safely and securely. The staff followed strict guidance regarding the receipt, storing and disposing of medicine. All other records relating to the management of the service were well maintained.

We saw there were enough staff employed to manage the service safely and to meet the person’s needs. Staff files showed the recruitment process was robust and staff had been safely recruited. Training was up to date and staff had a mix of skills and experience. Opportunities were given to staff to progress their career and achieve qualifications in health and social care.

The directors of the company one of whom was also the registered manager took turns to carry out staff supervision and appraisals which were regular and recorded. Staff and relative meetings were also held regularly and minutes were noted. This demonstrated that everyone had the opportunity to speak to the managers and raise any issues. Competency checks were undertaken by senior care staff to assess the staff’s suitability for their role.

There was evidence to show the registered manager and staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and their responsibilities. The service assessed mental capacity and reviewed it as necessary. Care records showed that wherever possible the person had been involved in making some decisions, but more complex decisions that were made in the person’s best interests’ had been appropriately taken with other professionals and a relative involved.

Staff supported the person to prepare nutritious, well-balanced meals. We observed the person enjoyed their food at mealtimes. The person had choice around mealtimes and often ate the planned meal from the menu, however we also saw evidence that they could choose different items if they preferred.

Staff displayed kind, caring and compassionate attitudes and the person told us all the staff and managers were nice to them. We observed the person was treated with dignity and respect and that the staff were pleasant and friendly.

The registered manager and staff had built a person centred care plan for the person using the service. Individual needs had been initially assessed and were constantly reviewed with the involvement of the person, their relative and external professionals. The care plan included life history, family members, interests and hobbies. These were accessible for the person to read and they included photographs and pictures.

The service encouraged and promoted activities which were indicative of the person’s hobbies and interests. The activity programme was built by the registered manager and staff team to ensure the person remained included in their community, whilst the individual activity plan empowered the person to get involved in activities in which they showed a keen interest.

There had been no complaints received by the service since the last inspection. The registered manager kept a record for complaints and explained to us how the complaints procedure was managed. The person told us they had nothing to complain about but would feel confident to tell the staff or a manager if something was wrong. The registered manager also kept a record of accidents and incidents, which they regularly monitored.

Regular quality monitoring took place. The deputy manager undertook daily and weekly audits to ensure the quality and safety of the service. The registered manager oversaw these. The service asked staff and relatives for feedback and gave them the opportunity to do so. Surveys were issued annually to gain the opinions of staff and relatives about how the service was managed and how it could be improved. We saw a good response to surveys, which allowed the registered manager to collate the feedback and measure an overall opinion. We saw an action plan had been drafted to improve the service following the last survey.

The registered manager had an extensive employment history working with people who had a mental health condition and she was well established in her role, having known the person for many years. The staff team were also consistent. Staff told us they felt valued and that they enjoyed working at the home. A staff member told us, “I like working here; I have good interaction with (person)”. And “I have been treated well and fair, I feel valued and they help me work my shifts around my kids – they try to accommodate you”.