Background to this inspection
Updated
8 June 2017
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 16 March 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.
Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, which included the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form in which we ask the provider to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed other information we held about the service including safeguarding alerts and statutory notifications which related to the service. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We also looked at the action plan supplied by the provider and considered any information which had been shared with us by the Local Authority
We focused on speaking with people who lived at the service who were able to verbally express their views about the service. We also spoke with staff and observed how people were cared for. Most people had complex needs and were not able, or chose not to talk to us. We 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 also observed the care and support provided to people and the interactions between staff and people throughout our inspection. We used observation as our main tool to gather evidence of people’s experiences of the service. We spent time observing care and support in the lounge, communal areas and during the lunch time meal.
We met all of the people who used the service and spoke with seven out of the nine people who used the service. Some of the people we spoke with were only able to have brief conversations. We spoke with four care staff members, one visiting healthcare professional and one visiting friend, and the registered manager. Additionally we spoke with relatives on the telephone after the inspection.
We looked at three people’s care records, staffing rotas and records which related to how the service monitored staffing levels. We also reviewed daily records, recruitment and training records and records relating to the quality and safety monitoring of the service. We looked at the premises and also looked at information which related to the management of risk within the service.
Updated
8 June 2017
This comprehensive inspection took place on 16 March 2017 and was unannounced. Arundel House is a ten bed service for people with a learning disability and supports people to live within their community. On the day of our inspection there were nine people using the service.
There was a manager in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
We received positive comments from people using the service where they were able to verbally express their views and their relatives about the staffing arrangements in the service. Staff followed instructions to minimise known risks to people’s health and well-being. Measures had been put into place to ensure risks were managed appropriately.
People were supported by staff who had received training and who had been supported to obtain qualifications. This ensured that the care provided was safe and followed best practice guidelines. Robust recruitment checks were in place to ensure new staff were suitable to work with people who used the service.
People received their medicines safely. Staff responsible for administering medicines had received relevant training.
Some staff we spoke with could not demonstrate a confident knowledge in the requirements, and their responsibilities in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This was because they had not yet completed updates in training in this area, however this was planned for the future. Not all applications to apply for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to protect the rights of people had been submitted to the local supervisory body for authorisation.
People had access to a variety of food and drink which they enjoyed. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to help them to maintain good health.
People were supported to have access to a wide range of health care professionals and were involved where able in the planning and reviewing of their care. Care plans we saw included people’s personal history, individual preferences and interests and reflected. People’s care and support needs. They also contained specific information and guidance for staff to enable them to provide individualised care and support.
People told us, or indicated that they were happy living at the service. We saw people continued to pursue individual interests and hobbies that they enjoyed. People were able to choose whether they wanted the opportunity to participate in meaningful activities.
People using the service and their relatives knew how to raise complaints. The complaints procedure was displayed in different formats to support people’s preferred way of communicating.
Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. The quality audits addressed areas of concern in ensuring the service maintained compliance with the regulations and was consistently meeting people’s needs.