In this report we refer to the manager who was covering this service, as the provider currently has no registered manager at this location.This inspection was completed by one inspector. On the day of our inspection we found that four people were staying at Ernest Bold Resource Centre. Due to their complex needs or health conditions, we were not able to speak with all of the people who used the service. We observed their experiences to inform our inspection. We spoke with two people who used the service, one relative, the manager, two team leaders and three care staff.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people told us, what we observed, the records we looked at and what staff told us. We used the evidence we collected during our inspection to answer five questions. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People told us they felt safe. One person told us, "I feel safe here." Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. Staff were aware of the provider's whistleblowing policy.
Staff sought people's permission when they supported them with their care needs. However, the provider had not assessed people's capacity to consent to their care and support. This meant people's rights were not protected.
Staff knew about people's risk management plans and we saw they were supported in line with those plans. This meant people were cared for in a way that protected them from harm.
The provider worked well with health care providers to ensure people's health needs were met and they were protected against harm.
We found the provider did not employ sufficient numbers of appropriately skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.
Systems were not in place to make sure that the manager and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and checks made on the service. This increased the risk to people.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. We found no applications had been made to the local authority because the provider had not assessed people's capacity to consent to remaining in the home.
Is the service effective?
We found that care plans and risk assessments were sufficiently detailed to ensure people received appropriate care. This meant people were receiving effective care that met their needs.
Where people had complex needs that required the input of specialist health care services, assessments had been made by the appropriate professionals. Their recommendations were carried out by staff. This meant the provider worked well with other services to ensure people's health care needs were met.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and caring staff. We saw that staff were patient and encouraged people to maintain their independence. One person told us, "The staff are nice."
People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People had the opportunity to plan and engage in a range of different activities that they enjoyed each day.
Where care staff had noticed people's changing needs, their care plans were updated to reflect this.
People, their relatives and staff were not asked for their views about the care provided.
Is the service well led?
We found the provider had some risk management systems in place but these were not checked to ensure risk was managed effectively and promptly.
We found staff were not always sure about their roles and responsibilities.
We found information contained in staff rotas was not always accurate and it was difficult for staff to identify the correct senior staff member to provide management support. The manager told us they would rectify this immediately.