We carried out a review of the data available to us about Magenta on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Magenta, you can give feedback on this service.
Magenta is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Magenta is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to three people. The home specialises in providing care to people with learning disabilities and the registered provider was working within the values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. At the time of our inspection there were two people living in the service. Accommodation is arranged over three floors.
At our last inspection we rated the service as 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.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
There was a registered manager at the service. 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 service was extremely person-centred and staff were proactive in ensuring people were supported to live fulfilled and meaningful lives. Person centred means that care was tailored to meet the needs and aspirations of each person, as an individual. The vision of the service was shared by the management team and staff.
People experienced a service that was safe. Staff and the management team had received training about protecting people from abuse, and they knew what action to take if they suspected abuse. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and people were supported to take positive risks. The premises were maintained and checked to help to keep people safe.
The provider had an excellent oversight of the service and knew the staff their well. Staff told us the manager and the provider were approachable and they were confident to raise any concerns they had with them. Staff were supported to fulfil their role in meeting people’s needs. The complaints policy was accessible to people using the service.
The two people living at the service were supported an a 1:1 basis 24 hours a day. Staff had received specific training to support the people living at the service. Recruitment practices were safe and checks were carried out to make sure that staff were suitable to work with people who needed care and support.
People were given their medicines safely and when they needed them. Policies and procedures were in place so that people took their medicines when needed. People were supported to remain as healthy as possible and they had been given access to specialist healthcare professionals who could support people with a learning disability.
People had access to the food and drink that they enjoyed. People were supported to choose what they wanted to eat and shop for the items that they wanted. Peoples nutrition and hydration needs had been assessed and recorded.
People were treated with kindness and respect. People needs had been assessed and time had been invested into the transition into the service to ensure that it was successful.
People were central to the support they received. Care and support was planned with people and their relatives and reviewed to ensure people continued to have the support that they needed. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible.
People took part in activities of their choice within the service and in the local community. People could choose what they wanted to do each day. There were enough staff to support people to participate in the activities they chose.
Processes were in place to monitor the quality and they had asked people for feedback about the service.
Services are required to prominently display their CQC performance rating. The provider had displayed the rating in the entrance hall. The service did not have a website.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
We carried out this inspection on 21 October 2015. Because this is a small service where people are out during the day. We contacted the provider before we arrived to ensure that someone would be in to receive us and to ensure we could meet the people living there.
Magenta is a service for people with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorder. It provides accommodation for up to three people, and at the time of inspection there were two people living in the service but only one was available for us to meet. At a previous inspection on 22 July 2013 we found the provider was meeting all the requirements of the legislation.
There was 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.
People were safe and protected from harm because there were enough staff available to support them in the service and when out in the community. Recruitment processes ensured only suitable staff were employed. Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and they discussed their performance during one to one meetings with their manager. Staff felt listened to and supported but would like more regular staff meetings, staff did not receive regular formal supervision but did meet regularly with their registered manager or deputy; records of these discussions were not always made.
The person we met demonstrated they were happy by their constant laughter, chatter and willingness to interact with the registered manager and a supporting staff member. The staff member was attentive and showed interest in the things the person wanted to show and tell them about. People were given opportunities to meet with staff to discuss their care and treatment. A relative confirmed that they were kept informed and had been consulted about the persons care and treatment plan. Staff monitored peoples health and well being and supported them to access routine and specialist health when this was needed.
People were given individual support to participate in their own interests and hobbies but also in sporting and conservation projects in the community. Risk assessments were completed for each person regarding their interactions with their environment and the activities they participated in, this helped staff to understand how to protect them from harm, these were kept updated or amended whenever changes occurred. Accidents and incidents were monitored by the provider to see where improvements could be made to prevent future occurrence. Individualised guidance was available to staff to help them understand how to work proactively with those people whose behaviour could be challenging to others.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. No one at the home was subject to a DoLS but the provider understood when an application should be made and the service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
Staff had been trained in how to protect people, and they knew the action to take in the event of any suspicion of abuse towards people. Staff understood the whistle blowing policy. They were confident they could raise any concerns with the registered manager or outside agencies if this was needed.
People lived in a well maintained environment that was decorated and furnished to a high standard, it was visibly clean and tidy and people were enabled with staff support to personalise their own personal space. Equipment checks and servicing were regularly carried out to ensure the premises and equipment used was safe. Fire detection and alarm systems were maintained, staff knew how to protect people in the event of a fire as they had undertaken fore training and took part in practice drills. Guidance was available to staff in the event of emergency events so they knew who to contact and what action to take to protect people.
People ate a varied diet and were consulted about the development of menus which took account of their personal preferences. Medicines were managed safely by trained staff. People and their relatives were routinely asked to comment about the service and action was taken to address any areas for improvement. A range of quality audits were in place to help the registered manager and provider monitor the service; ensuring standards were maintained.
We have made two recommendations:
We recommend that the provider ensures they have written explanations of the reasons for all employment gaps for staff recruited prior to the new interview process.
We recommend that the registered manager review and implement fully the company policy in regard to the frequency of meetings with staff in relation to performance and development and imparting information.
People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected. Records showed people received personal care in the way they preferred and that staff supported people to be as independent as possible in their daily activities.
We observed that people liked the staff and we observed that staff were kind towards them. A relative told us that the service was "Superb in respect of care and treatment". Staff understood people's needs and their preferred individual methods of communication. A relative said staff had "Lots of patience and tonnes of experience".
People who used the service were protected by the safe use and management of medicines.
Staff received regular supervision and appraisals, which meant people were supported by staff that were clear about their caring role and responsibilities. Essential staff training was updated and kept relevant to the care and treatment that people received.
The provider made regular checks of the service to make sure that people were getting the support they needed and that the service was safe.
People were treated with respect. We observed people being supported to make decisions about their day and saw records that showed that people were encouraged to make decisions about their daily lives, activities they took part in and the things important to them. People's choices were respected, one person chose to build a marble tower with their support worker and this was catered for.
A person told us they liked the staff and that they had been supported to personalise their room with the colour blue. When asked they indicated they "Liked blue, and trains, motorbikes and Red Arrows". We saw pictures and posters which reflected this.
Staff understood people's needs and preferences. People's personal abilities and health needs were assessed regularly. Staff supported people to access health care professionals when they were needed.
People were encouraged to be as independent as they could. For example by helping with tasks such as cleaning their rooms in line with individual skills and abilities.
There were enough staff on duty to support people safely and in the way they preferred to be cared for.
The service had systems in place to check on the quality of the service people received and to keep them safe.