Archived: MCCH Society Limited - 76 Fen Grove

Updated 7 September 2015

We inspected Fen Grove on 9 July 2014. This was an unannounced inspection which meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.

The inspection was led by an Adult Social Care inspector who was accompanied by an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service, for example, learning disability services.

Before the inspection, we reviewed information we held about the provider, including the provider’s information return (PIR). This is a form submitted by provider giving data and information about the service. We spoke with the GP, about people who use the service, a staff member from the speech and language therapy team that worked alongside the service, and a member of the local commissioning team. They gave positive feedback about the service. At our previous inspection of 27 November 2013, we found the provider was meeting regulations in relation to outcomes we inspected.

During inspection we observed care and support in communal areas and saw how people were being supported with their meals during lunch time. We looked at records about people’s care, including three people’s care records and records relating to the management of the home for example, staff recruitment and staff training records, safeguarding records, quality monitoring reports and records of incidents accidents and complaints.

People living at the home had complex ways of communicating and they were not able to fully tell us their views and experiences. Because of this we observed care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We spoke with two relatives, two health and social care professionals, two members of staff, registered manager and the area manager.

Updated 7 September 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection was an unannounced inspection carried out on 9 July 2014. At our previous inspection on 27 November 2013, we found the provider was meeting regulations in relation to outcomes we inspected.

MCCH Society Limited – 76 Fen Grove provides accommodation, care and support for up to four people with learning and physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at the service. The service was managed by a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Two relatives of two people who used the service told us they thought the service was safe and they had no concerns regarding the safety of the people. For example, one relative said, "I trust staff one hundred percent and my relative] is safe there" and another relative told us, "I think [my relative] is kept clean, well-fed and I can’t find any fault with the staff."

Staff had the training and knowledge they needed to make sure people living in the home were cared for safely. They knew how to respond to specific health and social care needs. Staff were able to speak confidently about the care practices they delivered and understood how they contributed to people’s health and wellbeing. Staff supervision and annual appraisals of all care staff was up to date and was in line with the provider's timescales. The staff we spoke with felt supported by their line manager and said they always received advice and direction as and when required, to meet the needs of people at all times.

We found staff recruitment practices were safe and the relevant checks had been completed before staff worked at the home. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs.

We found that people’s relatives, their care managers and appropriate healthcare professionals had been involved in the care planning process. However, we found where people were assessed to be unable to make decisions themselves, a best interests decision making process was not followed.

People’s medicines were managed to ensure they received them safely. Staff who administered medicines were appropriately trained. We found staff recruitment practices were safe and the relevant checks had been completed before staff worked at the home. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s assessed needs.

We observed that meals were home cooked and freshly prepared. A care plan had been created to record the needs of the individual, and an eating and drinking record maintained on a daily basis to show food and drink intake. A relative said, "My relative is well-fed and is eating better". A community professional told us, "The staff are very good at following our recommendations and they keep a food intake record clearly."

The care plans and risk assessments reflected people’s health and social care needs. Care plans showed that people had a wide range of health and social care needs and had access to external health care professionals’ support, such as a dentists, GPs, and speech and language therapists, as and when required. All relatives told us that staff looked after their relatives well and supported them as and when needed to meet their care needs. For example, one person said, "They take my relative for regular health check-ups, to dentist, haircut, they have a shower in the morning and are kept clean".

People’s assessments and care records considered their need for privacy and dignity. We observed staff treating people with dignity and respect. One relative told us, "My relative needs lots of caring and help; the staff do it well".

We saw that health and social care professionals, for example, GP, speech and language therapist and dentist worked together to meet people’s specific needs. Relatives told us they were actively encouraged to make their views known about care and support provided at the home. The manager told us that the home had not received any complaints since the previous inspection in November 2013. One relative told us, "I have no complaints whatsoever." And another relative said, commenting on the staff team, "They are very good, I can’t find any fault."

We found that people’s relatives, their care managers and appropriate healthcare professionals had been involved in the care planning process. However, we found where people were assessed to be unable to make decisions themselves, a best interests decision making process was not followed to make decisions about their own care needs.

The provider had effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. Following these checks, an action plan was developed and implemented to address the issues identified. Relatives of people who used the service praised the manager and said she was approachable. For example, a relative commented in the June 2014, feedback survey, "We as a family are very happy the way our relative is cared for at Fen Grove, and we have the utmost trust in the manager and her staff.