Archived: Mokattam

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with the staff, speaking with relatives of people who use the service, talking with commissioners of the service and from looking at records. We also requested the provider to send more information to us after the inspection.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

At this inspection, we only inspected whether the service was safe, as we followed up a prior inspection where the provider was issued with a warning notice about the safety and suitability of the premises.

The provider was able to show the inspector evidence that steps had been taken since the last inspection to ensure that people were safe in relation to the premises. The parking area at the front of the building had been paved. This meant that people who use the service, staff and visitors were at decreased risks of falls or trips when using this area. We saw that a prevention and control programme had been commenced for Legionella. This ensured that Legionella was prevented from growing in the water system.

Remedial works had occurred with regards to hot water supply and management in the building. We saw this included installation of safety devices to prevent water supply that could scald people. New shower screens and flooring had been installed in one bathroom. The provider had obtained an electrical safety certificate for the fixed wiring in the premises, in line with legislative requirements. Steps had been taken to compile an asbestos risk register for the building. An external contractor was due to complete the documentation shortly after our inspection.

Initial steps in finding alternative suitable premises were completed between relevant parties. The provider, commissioners of services and relatives held a meeting, visited locations and agreed on a site for new premises to be constructed.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulated activity at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time of this inspection. We have advised the provider of what they need to do to remove the individual's name from our register.

We did speak with relatives who were concerned about the premises. They told us that conversations and discussions about moving to a more suitable location had been long standing and ongoing. Relatives and the registered manager confirmed that other locations were being viewed in the near future with an aim to resolve risks associated with the current premises.

This follow up inspection was carried out by two compliance inspectors to check whether there were still risks to people who use the service related to the safety and suitability of the premises. We saw that the provider had completed some refurbishment to the premises including painting, new carpet and repairs. This had improved the decor of the home for people who use the service, relatives and care workers.

However, we found that there continued to be risks related the premises and maintenance. Although risks had been identified and assessed in most cases, interventions to address the risks had not always been considered or completed. For example, we saw the driveway and parking area at our last inspection was an area where injuries could occur. Although surveyors had been and the registered manager had completed a risk assessment, no works had been approved to lessen the risks to people and others who use the service.

At this inspection, we also found risks from hot water supply and control, Legionella, asbestos and electrical safety.

Staff felt well supported and were motivated. Their interactions with people were warm and friendly. Staff said they had enough resources to provide support and care.

People were encouraged to make choices and staff worked to support them in this. We saw that people were treated with respect. Their privacy and dignity were preserved.

We saw that people had a full programme of activities outside of their home and this included attendance at day centres for social, educational and vocational type activities and courses. People were also able to go on outings. A visitor told us that people had meaningful activities to occupy themselves.

The premises were in need of repair and we were told that the problems were longstanding and there were plans to relocate the service to a more suitable premises.

People and staff felt safe and staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. People knew how to raise any concerns. We saw that there were quality assurances processes in place and people and their relatives were consulted about the service.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who use the service because some people had complex needs and they were unable to tell us their experiences. Other people who use the service were able to communicate with us via staff about their experiences, but their feedback did not relate to the outcomes we inspected.

At the time of our inspection, there were six people accommodated by the service. We saw people were actively involved in community events and activities outside the home.

Support plans complemented and accompanied the risk assessments we viewed. These plans were recorded in the format of 'what people want to achieve' and were completed with the input of people who use the service, where possible.

The home had no recent complaints but did have several compliments on file. For example, one compliment we were shown said, "Please would you register a compliment for one of your staff, who gave my daughter a lovely time and every care and consideration during a weekend holiday".