Background to this inspection
Updated
23 April 2015
This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?
The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.
The inspection team consisted of one inspector.
Before our inspection we looked at and reviewed the provider’s information return. This is information we have asked the provider to send us about how they are meeting the requirements of the five key questions. We also reviewed the information we held about the home and looked at the notifications they had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. No concerns had been shared from the local authority.
During the inspection, we observed three people who lived at the home, spoke with five care staff and the registered manager. We spoke with two relatives by telephone.
We observed care and used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We looked at two records about people’s care, staff duty rosters, two staff files and audits about how the home was monitored.
Updated
23 April 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 pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.
This was an unannounced inspection. The home provides accommodation for up to five people who have a learning disability. There were four people living at the home when we visited and there was a registered manager in post. 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.
At the previous inspection no improvements were identified.
People were not able to talk with us about their care and treatment due to their complex needs. We observed how people interacted with staff. We saw that people were comfortable and confident when they engaged with staff. Staff demonstrated they understood people’s needs and told us about each person in detail and with an understanding of people’s preferences.
Relatives told us they were very happy with the overall care and treatment. Our observations and the records we looked at supported this view.
Staff were able to tell us about how they kept people safe. During our inspection we observed that staff were available to meet people’s care and social needs.
We saw that people’s privacy and dignity were respected. We saw that the care provided took into account people’s views and input from their relatives. Guidance and advice from other professionals such as social workers had also been included.
The provider acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provisions of the MCA are used to protect people who might not be able to make informed decisions on their own about the care or treatment they receive. At the time of our inspection three people were currently being assessed for DoLS.
We found that people’s health care needs were assessed, and care planned and delivered to meet those needs. People had access to other healthcare professionals such as a dietician and a chiropodist.
People were supported to eat and drink enough to keep them healthy. People had access to a range of snacks and drinks during the day and had choices at mealtimes. Where people had special dietary requirements we saw that these were provided for.
Staff were provided with both internal and external training that reflected the care needs of people who lived at the home. Staff told us that they would raise concerns with the registered manager and were confident that any concerns were dealt with appropriately.
The provider had taken steps to assess and monitor the home which took account of people’s views, those of relatives and other professionals. These had been used to make changes that benefitted the people living at the home.