We carried out a review with an inspection to Credence House on 7 March 2012. We looked at essential standards covering respect and involvement, care and welfare, safeguarding people from abuse, supporting staff and assessing and monitoring the quality of the service. We looked at the records of two people in detail; and where possible we spoke to the individual and or their carer. We observed interactions between care staff and people living at the home whilst we were visiting. We also spoke to two professionals about people's experiences of care and support at Credence House.
People we spoke to said that there had been some changes since the provider moved out of living at the service. On the positive side people told us 'we're keeping the same staff now all the time now'. We saw that people are treated as individuals and encouraged to be as independent as they are able, with comments like 'it's like normal here for me'. They are supported to be actively involved in the community where they live and lead busy lives.
However, the recent changes meant that people did not get to see the provider so often or have opportunities to give feedback. People's comments were 'we used to have a house meeting once a month but they're so busy now' and 'they check the staff, go through the diaries to see what's happening. They're so busy it would be nice if they had meetings with us like they used to'.
Professionals said that Credence House was a well run home, where people had a very good quality of life and their health had improved. For example, a professional told us that people 'are always involved in things in the community' and 'they have worked very hard to improve the lives of people living there'.
We have identified some key areas of concern. Quality assurance systems have failed to identify inconsistent and poor practice with regard to ensuring that people's support plans were up to date. They have not always been written in a way that recognised their individual communication needs. People had not been given sufficient opportunities to give feedback about the running of the home. We did not find that outcomes for people were poor, but we did find that this was not monitored sufficiently to ensure care and support was consistent, appropriate and always following best practice. We have set compliance actions in respect of these and we will be reviewing these again in the near future with a further unannounced visit to the residential home.