Archived: Sussex Oakleaf Housing Association Limited - 26 Shakespeare Road

Sussex Oakleaf Housing Association Limited - 26 Shakespeare Road is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to eight people with mental health needs. At the time of the inspection there were seven people living at the home.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

At the last inspection the service was rated as Good. The inspection report was published on 13 August 2016. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People and their relatives said the staff provided a good standard of care. For example, a relative told us, “The quality of staff is terrific. They look after people really well.” People said they liked the staff and described them as both friendly and respectful. People said they were consulted about their care. Each person had their own bedroom with an en-suite bathroom and three of these also had a kitchen area. People said they liked their living space, which staff helped them to keep clean and tidy.

• The provider had plans to close the service by the end of June 2019 as part of a planned change to its service structure. At the time of the inspection the provider had not yet submitted an application to remove the location from CQC’s registration. Staff were working with social services’ funding authorities, relatives and people themselves to secure new accommodation which met people’s wishes.

• We observed staff were skilled in communicating with people effectively. People were supported by staff who were kind and attentive. Staff demonstrated they promoted values of independence and choice for people.

• People said there was a choice of food at each meal. We observed people helping themselves to breakfast. People helped prepare meals for the residents. People confirmed there were a range of activities, which they could choose to take part in.

• Staff were well trained and supervised. Staff said they felt supported and worked well as a team.

• The home was homely and comfortable. Carpets in communal areas were stained and worn and in need of replacement. Some areas of the home were showing signs of wear and tear. The provider was aware of this but was not implementing any plans to address this due to the imminent closure of the home.

• The service was well managed and there was a culture of valuing and involving people and staff in decision making. A range of audits were used to monitor the quality and safety of the services provided. People said the staff and management were approachable. Residents’ meetings were held on a regular basis where agenda items included discussions about the home and food. Surveys were also used to monitor the views of people and relatives.

Follow up: We will review the service in line with our methodology for ‘Good’ services.

Sussex Oakleaf Housing Association – 26 Shakespeare Road – is registered to provide accommodation and support for up to eight people living with complex mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder and autism. At the time of our inspection, there were eight people living at the service. Rooms are of single occupancy and all have en-suite facilities. Three people have their own individual flats with kitchen, two within the main building and one adjoining it. Communal areas include a sitting room, with kitchen and dining areas and an accessible garden surrounds the house. Shakespeare Road is within walking distance of the town centre and seafront, with access to public transport.

A new manager had been appointed recently and had commenced employment at the service approximately six weeks before our inspection. They had applied to register as manager and had submitted their application to the Commission. 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 free to come and go as they pleased at the service and their movements were not restricted. Risk assessments were in place to protect people and their risks had been identified, assessed and managed appropriately. They were protected from the risk of abuse by trained staff who knew what action to take if they suspected abuse was taking place. Accidents and incidents were managed safely and action taken to prevent the risk of reoccurrence. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and new staff were vetted as to their suitability before they commenced employment. Medicines were managed safely.

People were supported by staff who had completed all essential training and were encouraged to study for additional vocational qualifications. New staff completed the provider’s induction training programme covering the regulations relating to health and social care. Staff received regular supervisions and the majority of staff had completed annual appraisals. Team meetings were held fortnightly and the new manager was using these meetings as mini training sessions and for staff to reflect on their experiences to improve the way they worked. The requirements of legislation under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were met by staff who understood their responsibilities and the implications of these codes of practice. People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink and to maintain a healthy diet. They had access to a range of healthcare professionals and services.

People were cared for and supported by kind, friendly staff who knew them well. Staff were patient and understanding of people’s mental and physical health needs and supported them in an empathic way. People were encouraged to express their feelings and share their emotions at informal group meetings. Their cultural and spiritual beliefs were acknowledged and respected. Cultural events were organised and people were treated with dignity and respect.

Care was personalised and was responsive to people’s complex needs. Care plans included information and guidance to staff on people’s personal care needs, physical and mental health and how they wished to be supported. People were involved in all aspects of their care and met regularly with their keyworkers to discuss their mental and emotional wellbeing. People participated in activities that were important to them and could freely access the community. A range of events was also organised at the service and a minibus trip was planned for the future. Complaints were managed appropriately and to the satisfaction of the complainant.

People and their families were extremely complimentary about the service and the quality of the care delivered. Their feedback was obtained through formal surveys and responses overall were positive. The manager had recently come into post and prior to his employment, the assistant manager had taken over the running of the service. Staff felt supported by their immediate managers and by the provider. Their emotional wellbeing was supported through supervision meetings and by a ‘Staff Wellbeing Day’ which the provider had organised. A range of audits was in place to measure the quality of care delivered and the service overall.

We spoke to three people who were using the service and examined house meeting notes. People told us that they were happy in the home. House meeting notes showed that people were involved in the running of the home. We spoke to four members of staff and the assistant manager and observed a staff meeting. We saw that staff were knowledgeable about the people using the service and observed that they treated people with kindness and respect.

We examined care records and the notes of staff and house meetings which demonstrated that people were supported and encouraged to make decisions about the care they received. We observed staff interacting with people and encouraging independence.

Recruitment processes were in place which demonstrated that staff were employed with the appropriate knowledge and skills for their role.

In our discussions with staff they demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the people living at the service. This was confirmed by our observations and by what we read in care records.

Care records showed that people had been supported and encouraged to make decisions about their lives. We saw that people or their representatives had been involved in planning their care and support. When people’s needs changed, we found that records had been updated to reflect this. We found that people's rights were protected if they lacked mental capacity; for example, by having best interests decisions made with the involvement of an advocate and the Public Trust Office.

Staff spoken with demonstrated good understanding of how to safeguard people from harm. Training records showed that staff received regular training to update their knowledge on abuse and safeguarding.

Training records showed that staff were suitably trained and supported in their role, including training specific to the people living in the service, such as anxiety management. The staff told us that they felt trained and supported in their work.

We looked at a number of audits that demonstrated that the provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people.