Waterfield Supported Homes Limited - 23 Broadfield Road

23 Broadfield Road is a care home for up to seven people with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection, there were seven people using the service. The home is an adapted residential property with accommodation over three floors. There was a communal lounge, dining area, kitchen and garden.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they liked living here and that they felt safe. They told us they had privacy and were treated with respect by staff.

People were supported by well-trained staff who knew them well and understood their needs. We saw staff interact with people in a caring way.

People's medicines were safely managed and stored. Fire safety checks and drills were regularly completed. There were regular, documented safety checks and external assessments of safety and equipment.

People had detailed risk assessments and care plans which they helped develop.

The registered manager regularly audited and reviewed the home's records, policies and procedures.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home and felt supported by management.

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

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 11 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

People remained safe at the service. Staff had received training on how to identify abuse and understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and reporting concerns.

Risks to people were identified and guidance was put in place on what action staff had to take to minimise harm. Staff understood the risks to each person and followed guidance to keep them safe. Systems and processes in place were sufficient to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm.

People received care from a sufficient number of staff to meet their needs. Staffing levels were reviewed when people’s needs changed and to support them with activities and to attend appointments. Appropriate recruitment procedures ensured people received care from staff vetted as suitable for their role.

People received their medicines as required. Medicines were stored securely and managed safely by staff assessed as competent to do so.

Trained staff who were supported in their role delivered people’s care. Staff received regular supervisions about how to deliver effective care and appraisals to identify training and development needs.

People were involved in planning their care. Staff understood people’s needs and provided care with kindness and compassion. People’s dignity and privacy were upheld at the service.

Staff had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and applied its principles when providing people’s care. People were supported to make their own decisions about their care. Best interest meetings were held to support people who were unable to consent or make particular decisions about their care.

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 knew how to make a complaint and were confident their concerns would be resolved. People’s views about the service were sought and their feedback used to develop the service.

Staff assessed people’s needs and care plans were developed to meet their individual needs and preferences. People enjoyed the food provided at the service and had choices on what they could eat and drink. People’s nutritional and dietary requirements were met. Staff supported people to maintain their health and to access healthcare services when needed.

The provider had effective systems in place to assess the quality of care provided. Regular checks and audits were carried out on the quality of care and safety of people and improvements were made when needed.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We reviewed the care records for three of the people using the service. We found that each person had an up to date care plan and risk assessment in place.

Staff received annual training in safeguarding and they were able to demonstrate that they were aware of the signs of potential abuse and knew the procedures to follow.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

We reviewed the recruitment records for four staff. We saw that each record contained the information required in the regulations, including criminal record checks, proof of identify, references, a health declaration and the right, where appropriate, to work in the UK.

We found that the provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.

At our last inspection in January 2013 we found that some of the personal records for people using the service were not up to date. At this inspection we found that the records were accurate.

At this inspection on 9 January 2013, we found that there were still aspects of the service that were not meeting the required standard.

As this was a follow up to check on the non-compliance identified at our last inspection we did not speak with people using the service on this occasion.

We spoke with the placement authority who had no concerns about the service and were positive about the way the home managed the complex needs of people placed there.

These views were confirmed by our inspection. However, we found that some of the provider's records on the care and support provided were incomplete which may result in people being put at risk.