We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bath MIND - 82 Lower Oldfield Park 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 Bath MIND - 82 Lower Oldfield Park, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
People were positive about the support they were receiving during the pandemic. One person showed us how they had been supported during the pandemic. Others told us about how staff had been helping them to clean the home regularly. People confirmed staff were always wearing masks and we observed this during the inspection.
Staff supported people minimally with intimate care which impacted staff knowledge around wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE). They had some knowledge about the correct sequence of putting on and taking off PPE. However, because they had not used it as much since being trained their familiarity required some refreshing. The registered manager told us they would organise this. Following the inspection, we liaised with the local authority as well who offered further support.
The home was clean and smelt fresh throughout. Staff told us they supported people to keep the home clean including each bedroom. Consideration had not been made about increasing the frequency of cleaning high touch areas in light of new COVID-19 strains. The registered manager reviewed this following the inspection.
COVID-19 testing had been carried out regularly for staff including daily lateral flow tests prior to the staff coming into work. When people consented, they were part of the testing. Risk assessments were in place for those who had capacity and opted out of testing.
Visitors to the home were offered a lateral flow test for COVID-19 and PPE. They had their temperature checked and completed a check list with staff before coming into the home. However, temperatures were not being recorded for everyone to demonstrate it was happening. The registered manager told us they would implement this immediately.
Systems were in place to identify risks and plan for an outbreak. The registered manager had liaised with other organisations including the local authority. They had sought specialist advice around COVID-19 to ensure their systems were in line with government guidance. Following the inspection, the registered manager informed us further improvements were made to keep people safe. For example, increase in signage around the home and consideration of how to further cohort the home in the event of an outbreak.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service had met all relevant fundamental standards and remained rated as Good.
People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.
Risks to people were assessed and where required a risk management plan was in place to support people manage an identified risk and keep the person safe.
Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people's needs and this ensured people were supported safely. Staff completed training to ensure they were suitably skilled to perform their role. Staff were provided with development through a supervision programme.
People were supported to maintain good health and had access to external health care professionals when required.
Staff were caring towards people and there was a good relationship between people and staff. Staff demonstrated and in-depth understanding of the needs and preferences of the people they cared for.
Care provided to people met their needs. Care plans provided information about what was important to people and how to support them. People were involved in activities of their choice.
There were systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service . Staff described the registered manager as approachable. Comments from surveys and compliments received by the service confirmed that people were happy with the service they received.
Further information is in the findings below.
The inspection took place on 20 May 2015 and was unannounced. The service was last inspected in September 2014 and met with legal requirements.
82 Lower Oldfield Park provides care and accommodation for up to eight people who have mental health needs. There were eight people living at the home on the day of our visit
There was a registered manager in place. 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 living at the home felt there was enough staff to support them and they felt safe. We also found there were sufficient staff on duty at all times to safely support people with their needs.
People said their views were listened to and they were able to make changes and suggestions about the way the home was run. For example people told us they were involved in choosing where they wanted to go for a forthcoming day trip.
People were well supported to develop independence in their daily lives. Staff worked hard supporting them with daily living skills. People were involved in planning the care and support they needed. The care plan records were informative and clearly explained what support people needed.
People were cared for by staff with awareness and understanding of their mental health needs. Staff received training in a range of mental health topics to support them in their work.
People were involved in monitoring the quality care they received. This was evidenced in a number of ways for example care plans clearly showed people were involved in planning what support they felt they needed.
People spoke highly about the qualities of the registered manager and their supportive approach with everyone. Staff also said they felt supported in their roles and they could always make their views known to the registered manager.
The home was run in an open and inclusive way. People who lived at the home were central to how it was run. For example, their views were included in how the home was decorated and maintained.
People were also regularly asked by the registered manager to give their opinions of the staff and whether they felt well supported by them. People were also able to go to the office at any time, make themselves a drink there, and talk with the staff.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, from speaking with people who use the service and a relative, speaking with the staff and from looking at records. We spoke with five people who lived in the home although they did not all comment on the service provided. One person told us that they had been to the shopping centre with a member of staff and had bought some clothes.
Is the service safe?
We saw that people were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People came to the office to take their medication. Staff talked to them about their day and listened to what they had to say. Medication was stored safely in a medicine cabinet. Two staff administered the medication and signed the record to make sure it was correct. Staff received training so that they could administer medicines to people in a safe way.
Each person had a series of risk assessments which included the action that was needed to reduce risk and keep people safe. There were general risk assessments and risk management plans so that the people who lived in the home, staff and visitors were kept safe. There was an emergency contingency plan to make sure that people were kept safe if there was an emergency.
There were systems to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents, incidents and concerns. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to improve continually.
The home had information about the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and staff had received training. There had been one Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application to make sure that the person was safeguarded and their rights were upheld.
Staff supported people to clean and tidy the house. They made sure all shared areas were clean throughout the day so that people were protected from the risk of infection.
We saw that there were enough staff so that they were not rushed and could respond to people calmly. This helped to make sure that people's needs were always met. Staff received a range of training and could work towards qualifications so that they had the right skills to support people and keep them safe.
The manager audited the quality of service once a month to make sure that the service was safe.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed and each person had a detailed support plan so that staff knew how to support them. Information about people's needs and what was important to them was recorded in their plans. The support care plans were regularly reviewed and updated so that they reflected people's current needs.
Each person had their own room and these were furnished and decorated as they wished.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that support workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. One person told us that staff supported them to shop for clothes and personal items. Another person said that staff supported them to clean and tidy their room.
People could give their views about the service through an annual survey and residents' meetings, and where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in line with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People could participate in a range of activities outside the home if they chose. Staff took care to find out what each person was interested in so that they could support them with activities that suited their needs. For example one person wanted to join a table tennis club and staff were supporting them to apply.
People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. There had been one recent complaint. We looked at how this had been dealt with, and found that the response had been open, thorough, and timely. People could therefore be assured that complaints were investigated and action was taken as necessary.
There was a regular group meeting to obtain people's views and action was taken in response to comments.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies such as the community psychiatric nurse, psychiatrist and GP to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. The service has notified CQC of incidents as required.
The service had a quality assurance system. We saw records, which showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result, the quality of the service was continuingly improving.
Staff we spoke with were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The service manager told us that the senior managers in the organisation provided good support and monitored the quality of the service.
The provider has taken steps to provide care in an environment that is suitably designed and adequately maintained. All the people who lived in the house had their own bedroom with its own lock and people we spoke to confirmed they all had keys to their rooms and the front door.
All the staff we spoke with thought there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty at all times to meet the needs of the people in the house. We were told by people living there that they thought there were enough staff available to support them.
People we spoke with told us they felt they were listened to and could make changes to the way the house was managed. An example we were told about was where some people decided on where to go for a holiday.
People were given support by the provider to make a comment or complaint where they needed assistance
People were involved in planning what care and support they needed to live a fulfilling life in the home and in the community. The care plans showed what support people needed and were informative and based on meeting each persons unique needs. We saw risk assessments records that set out how to support people and keep them safe.
People were being supported by staff who were trained to understand what to do to keep people safe from abuse. Staff knew who to report an allegation of abuse to within their own organisation.
People were cared for by staff with a good understanding of mental health needs. This meant people received care from staff who knew how to give them the support they required.
We saw a system to review and learn from all critical incidents and occurrences that may have impacted on people's wellbeing. People were consulted as part of the monitoring and reviewing of the quality of care they received.
People are being well supported to develop independence in their daily lives. The staff team work hard supporting people in their daily living skills .One good example of this, is how each person at the home is given a weekly spending allowance to buy their own food to cook. Every person we met said that they thought this was a good idea. Giving people who use the service their own money to buy and cook food is an excellent example of people being supported to develop independence in their lives.
People who use the service are actively involved in planning the care and support they need. The care plan records explain what support people need clearly and are helpful and informative.
People who use the service are cared for by staff who have an awareness and good understanding of mental health needs. This means people receive care from staff who know how to support and care for them.
There are effective ways used to actively involve people who use the service in monitoring and reviewing the quality of service and the care they receive.
The home is run in an open and inclusive way, with the best interests of people who live there at the centre of how the service is managed.