This was the first inspection carried out by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), since the service registered with CQC in autumn 2013. Our inspection helped answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People were safe because staff recognised and respected people's rights and dignity needs.
People were kept safe because staff recognised and understood people's behaviours and took prompt action to manage distressed behaviours appropriately.
People were kept safe because the service followed robust recruitment practices.
The arrangements in place to manage medication were not robust. We told the provider to take action to improve this area of care.
Is the service effective?
People were involved in the assessments of their needs however, records did not evidence this process well.
Staff were knowledgeable about people's personal care needs and how they were to be met.
Staff were alert to changes in people's behaviours that may indicate their health needs had changed and that specialist support was required. One mental health professional told us 'We have absolutely no concerns about the way people's mental health care needs are managed at Cosford House.'
Is the service caring?
People told us they were treated well, and the staff were kind and helpful. They commented 'The staff are absolutely brilliant' and 'It's very nice here. The staff know what they're doing.'
Staff knew all about the people they were supporting and they interacted with people in a caring way.
People were treated in a respectful way and their views and opinions were listened to and acknowledged.
Is the service responsive?
People and staff were encouraged to provide their views and opinions about the service. People were given the time they needed to make decisions about the support they received.
Independent advocates were used, when necessary to provide independent advice and support to individuals.
Is the service well-led?
The owners were in day to day charge of the service so were informally monitoring staff behaviours and attitudes.
Staff were motivated, caring, well trained and supported, and had a common aim of promoting people's independence and life skills.
Whilst we saw good leadership, the provider needed to familiarise themselves more with the standards of care, by which they were regulated against. Some records describing the care delivered were not available to look at. We told the provider to take action to improve this area of care.