Archived: Quinnell House

The purpose of the inspection was to check that people who lived in the home were safe and that records held by the provider were appropriate to meet the needs of the people. We also wanted to check that the provider responded appropriately and in a timely manner to any complaints they received.

We spoke with two residents, three members of staff, two relatives, the deputy manager and the provider during our visit. There were 27 people living at the service on the day of our inspection.

We looked at records that related to accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns. These had been completed fully and held appropriately. We looked at the records that related to the recent incident and saw that the registered manager had identified some information had not been completed as it should have. However, we saw that the registered manager had reminded staff of their duty to complete records fully and that staff had learnt from this.

From the training matrix that we were provided with, we could see that all but three staff had up to date safeguarding vulnerable adults training. We also saw that the service held a flowchart for staff which showed who to contact should they have any concerns. People that we spoke with on the day told us they felt safe living at Quinnell House. One said, “Totally.”

The deputy manager told us that the service had not received any written complaints in the last 12 months. We looked at the complaints folder and saw that the last complaint was in April 2013. This had been responded to and resolved very quickly. The service displayed information on how to make a complaint, although we noted this needed updating. When we asked people if they knew how to make a complaint, one person told us, “I would speak to staff.”

Records held by the service that related to the people who lived there were up to date and appropriate to meet the needs of the people. We were told that the service was gradually moving over to computerised records and we could see that information held on the computer was secure and only accessible by relevant members of staff.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. Staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Although no applications had needed to be submitted, relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should have been made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs had been assessed and they or their relatives, if they did not have capacity, had been invited to read care documentation and to add their views. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. We saw that each person had a memory box adjacent to their bedroom door, this helped people to identify their room more easily. We saw that visitors were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these had been addressed. People’s preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

We used a number of different methods including SOFI to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. People took part in a range of activities in the home. One person told us, “It’s good enough for me.”

Is the service well-led?

The service had introduced a new quality assurance system that was gradually being embedded into practice. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls had been addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuing to improve. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We used a number of different methods, including SOFI, to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences.

We observed staff interacting positively with people. However, some care practices indicated that people’s dignity was not always respected.

We saw that the home sought specialist advice and support to meet the needs of people. Charts within care plans were updated but changes noted did not always result in an update to the care plan in place.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty. Staff were not always clear about what they should do if they suspected abuse.

Systems to monitor the quality of the care provided were in the process of development but were not sufficiently established to be effective.