During our inspection we looked for the answers to five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
Is the service safe?
We looked at the systems in place for managing medicines in the service. We reviewed general storage and handling as well as a sample of Medication Administration Records (MARs), stock and other records. We also observed the administration of medicines. Overall we found appropriate arrangements for the ordering, recording, administration and safe handling of medicines were in place.
The provider responded appropriately to any allegation of abuse. Where concerns had been raised in the past, we found the provider had appropriately reported matters to the local authority safeguarding team and the Care Quality Commission (CQC). We found the provider had cooperated with investigations and had implemented actions to prevent reoccurrence or to maintain people's safety.
The provider had taken action to check if people who used the service were being deprived of their liberty under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked people's DoLS paperwork and found applications were in the process of being submitted.
Is the service effective?
We found people living at Osman House were involved in regular reviews of the care and support they received, both from the psychologists and the wider community health services. We were told by the assistant psychologist that everyone had an allocated session each week to discuss how things were going and to determine if people's programmes were effective and appropriate.
Is the service caring?
We observed the interaction between staff and people who used the service throughout our visit. It was clear staff knew people well. We saw the way staff approached people was tailored to meet the needs of the individual. Staff were both professional and caring in how they communicated with people.
A member of staff we spoke with said, "I believe people are happy living here, we promote independence and people live in comfortable surroundings."
Is the service responsive?
We saw information on making a complaint was displayed in the home. Staff told us they tried to resolve any issues people raised and people could approach the manager at any time. We looked at the complaints log and saw detailed records of the complaint, how the complaint had been investigated, feedback to the complainant and if the person was happy with the response.
Is the service well led?
The quality of the service was audited by senior managers of the organisation who undertook monthly 'provider visits', during which they talked with people who used the service, talked with staff and ensured the building was safe. We saw evidence of such internal quality monitoring. This included an action plan with actions and dates for completion.
Staff were generally appropriately supported. We saw the matrix for staff one to ones and 'personal development review' (PDR) we found one to one meetings had taken place, however, staff had not received their PDR. This had been identified in the 'provider visit' the action was 'to collate supervision/PDR data' and it had been noted during the June 2014 visit that 'most records had been gathered'.