Cosford House

Updated 15 January 2019

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 5 December 2018 and was announced. We gave the service four days’ notice of the inspection. We did this as we wanted to make sure a member of the management team was available on the day of the inspection. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors.

Prior to the inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included notifications the provider had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We contacted the local authority safeguarding and commissioning teams, and the local Healthwatch England. Healthwatch England is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services. We used their feedback to help plan the inspection.

Due to technical problems, the provider was not able to complete a Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

During the inspection we spoke to three people who lived at the service, one relative, four staff members and the management team including the registered manager and manager. We looked at a range of documents and records related to people’s care and the management of the service. We looked at four care plans, four staff recruitment files, supervision and training records. We also looked at quality assurance audits, complaints and a selection of policies and procedures.

Updated 15 January 2019

This service provides care and support to people living in a ‘supported living’ setting, so that they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. Cosford House is registered to provide personal care to men with mental health needs. At the time of inspection eight people were receiving personal care.

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. We have rated well led as requires improvement. However, the overall rating remains Good.

People told us they felt safe and were happy with the care they received. Staff had knowledge of their responsibilities with regards to safeguarding. Safe recruitment practices were in place to employ suitable staff. Staff understood the importance of good infection control and wore appropriate equipment provided to keep people safe. People were happy with the support they received with their medication.

Staff had completed training to meet people's needs effectively. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People care needs were assessed and reviewed. Peoples nutritional needs were met.

People were positive about the staff and the care they received. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity and supported people to maintain relationships and their independence. People were involved in deciding how their care was provided.

Care plans were in place and contained detailed information of how people wanted to be supported. People confirmed they had been involved in the development of their care plans. People knew how to raise any concerns or complaints if required.

All staff were positive about the management team and the amount of support they received. At the last inspection we made a recommendation regarding quality monitoring of medication. Although quality assurance procedures had been implemented, further development was still required. We found some areas at inspection that audits had failed to identify. The service did not always seek formal feedback to continue to develop the service. We were unable to see evidence of meetings with staff and people who use the service. Following the inspection, the manager organised for staff meetings and formal supervisions to take place.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.