Archived: Dewsbury 2

The home provides support and personal care to up to 10 adults with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection 10 people were living at the home.

The home had a registered manager. 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 provider had breached the regulation relating to good governance. The quality assurance systems at the home required further development so that they were effective in promoting sustained improvements.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

People, a family member and care workers we spoke with confirmed they felt the home was safe.

Care workers were aware of and understood safeguarding the provider’s whistle blowing procedure, including how to report concerns. Care workers knew how to raise concerns about people’s safety but had not needed to previously.

People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs and offer support when they needed it.

Medicines were managed appropriately. Some people had been supported to develop the skills to manage some or all of their medicines administration. Where care workers supported people with their medicines, accurate records were kept.

Recruitment checks including requesting references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were carried out to check new care workers were suitable for their role.

Records confirmed incidents and accidents were logged and investigated. Action had been taken to help prevent the incident from happening again.

Regular health and safety checks were carried out, such as checks of the fire safety systems, water temperature and gas safety. Risk assessments had been carried out to help manage potential risks to people.

There were procedures to deal with emergency situations and guidance for staff to help support people appropriately.

Staff confirmed they received the support and training they required to fulfil their caring role. Records confirmed staff had regular supervision and appraisal. Essential training was up to date for all care workers.

People were not being deprived of their liberty and regularly accessed the local community independently. Care workers confirmed people had the capacity to make their own choices and decisions. People confirmed they received the care they had consented to.

People were supported to do their own shopping and to prepare meals of their choice. People did not require support from care workers with eating and drinking.

Care workers supported people to attend a range of health appointments when required, such as the GP and hospital appointments.

People’s needs had been assessed and personalised support plans developed. People were involved in assessing the progress they had made using a visual tool. Care records provided care workers with information about people’s preferences.

People knew how to complain but said they did not have any concerns about their care. Previous complaints had been thoroughly investigated and resolved.

People said there was a good atmosphere in the home and that it was well-led.

People told us they had a varied choice of food and that they thought the food was lovely. People explained they made their own breakfast and lunch, with support from staff where necessary. This encouraged and promoted people's independence.

All of the areas we observed in the home looked clean and there were no unpleasant odours. We saw that the communal areas, including bathrooms and toilets, were clean, tidy and well-maintained. We looked at the cleaning schedules, which detailed the standard of cleanliness required and the frequency of cleaning.

At the time of our inspection there were nine people living at the home, the service was registered for 10 people. Through our observations we saw that staff responded promptly to people's requests for assistance. Staff confirmed there were enough staff on duty. We found evidence to show appropriate training was provided to staff.

We reviewed how the quality of care was monitored. The area manager had the responsibility to ensure a range of quality audits and checks were undertaken each month. The provider had systems in place to identify, analyse and review risks or incidents.