Osman House

Updated 8 September 2018

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 27 June 2018 and was unannounced.

Osman House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or 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.

The inspection team was made up of two adult social care inspectors.

Prior to the inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the service, including previous inspection reports and statutory notifications sent to us by the provider. Statutory notifications, which are a legal requirement, provide CQC with information about changes, events or incidents in order that we have an overview of what is happening at the service. We also contacted the local authority to gather their feedback and views about the service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information to assist us in planning the inspection.

During our inspection, we spoke with four people who used the service, three care workers, two assistant managers, an occupational therapist, an assistant psychologist, a therapy assistant and the manager. We spent time looking at documents and records relating to people's care and the management of the service. We looked in detail at three people's care plans, medicine records, four staff recruitment and training files and policies and procedures developed and implemented by the provider. We observed medicines being administered, the lunch time experience and activities throughout the day.

Following the inspection the manager sent us the results of an internal medicines investigation which we shared with the CQC medicines team who told us they had no concerns about the incident. We were also sent details of staff training at the service.

Updated 8 September 2018

Osman House offers specialist care and support for up to sixteen adults with an acquired brain injury in a residential environment providing an ongoing rehabilitation service. There were fourteen people living at the service on the day of the inspection. The service had been redeveloped with the addition of a purpose built extension to provide individual bedrooms, several communal areas and a large garden.

At our last inspection we rated the service good overall. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good with responsive improving to 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.

The inspection took place on 27 June 2018 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 29 January 2016 we found a breach of Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014 because the provider had not made sure people received care to meet their needs and which reflected their preferences.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key question of responsive to at least good. We found that the provider had reviewed and changed the way in which care was planned and reviewed. The care planning and review process was more structured and ensured people’s current needs and preferences were reflected in the documentation.

People felt safe and staff had been trained and understood their responsibilities around safeguarding adults and reporting concerns.

Risks to people’s physical and mental health had been identified and guidance was available for staff to manage those risks. The environment and equipment was safely maintained.

Staff recruitment was robust and there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff were well trained in basic care and in specialist subjects giving them the knowledge they required to care for people who used the service.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People had access to a clinical team within the service and other healthcare professionals from the community such as their GP or community mental health team. They each had a health passport with details of their care needs, for those times they needed to visit other services such as hospitals.

Staff maintained positive relationships with people and showed care and compassion in their interactions.

Staff were caring maintaining positive relationships with people. They consulted people about the way in which they wished to receive their care and supported them through the rehabilitation process giving practical and emotional support.

There was a quality monitoring system in place which identified where improvements were needed. One medicine recording error had not been identified but the manager investigated and provided a report immediately following the inspection. Lessons were learned from this as measures were put in place to make sure this was not repeated. There had been no impact on people.

People and staff were invited to share their views and give feedback about the service. They attended regular meetings where they could discuss any issues related to the day to day running of the service.

Further details can be found in the main report.