This was an unannounced inspection.
The service provides care and support for up to five people who may have a learning disability, a mental health condition or physical disabilities. Some people using the service displayed behaviours that were challenging to others are required physical interventions from staff to keep them and others safe. Some people could not speak with us due to difficulty in communicating effectively.
There is a registered manager at Marika House. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.
Record showed the provider monitored incidents where behaviours were and responded promptly by informing the local authority safeguarding team, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), behavioural support team and advocacy agencies.
Staff were knowledgeable about the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and worked with advocacy agencies, healthcare professionals and family members to ensure decisions made in people’s best interests were appropriately documented.
People were not unlawfully deprived of their liberty without authorisation from the local authority. Staff were knowledgeable about the deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) in place for people and accurately described the content detailed in people’s authorisations.
People were protected from possible harm. Staff were able to identify the different signs of abuse and were knowledgeable about the homes safeguarding processes and procedures. They consistently told us they would contact CQC and the local authority if they felt someone was at risk of abuse. Notifications sent to CQC and discussions with the local authority safeguarding team confirmed this.
Staff received training appropriate to people’s needs and were regularly monitored by a senior member of staff to ensure they delivered effective care. Where people displayed physical behaviours that challenged others, staff responded appropriately by using redirection techniques and only used restraint as a last resort. Records showed the provider had informed the local authority and healthcare professionals when this was applied. Records of physical restraint and challenging behaviours were used as part of people’s care reviews to consider the least restrictive intervention.
Staff interacted with people and showed respect when they delivered care. Relatives and healthcare professionals consistently told us staff engaged with people effectively and encouraged people to participate in activities. People’s records documented their hobbies, interests and described what they enjoyed doing in their spare time.
Records showed staff supported people regularly to attend various health related appointments. Examples of these included visits to see the GP, hospital appointments and assessments with other organisations such as the community mental health team.
People received support that met their needs because staff regularly involved them in reviewing their care plans. Records showed reviews took place on a regular basis or when someone’s needs changed.
The service had an open culture where people told us they were encouraged to discuss what was important to them. We consistently observed positive interaction between staff and people.