Archived: Telegraph Road

Updated 27 February 2016

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.

This inspection took place on 3 February 2016 and was unannounced.

We reviewed the information we held about the service. We looked at previous inspection reports and notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law

The inspection was conducted by one inspector. This was because this is a small service with people who had complex needs.

We looked at the care records for three people, reviewed the homes quality assurance audits and documentation. We looked at the policies and general information available for people such as safeguarding incidents and feedback questionnaires completed by relatives and professionals. We looked at two staff personnel records including their recruitment and training details. We looked at staff schedules, safeguarding procedures and observed interactions between staff and people.

We spoke with the provider, the operations manager, the deputy manager, two support workers, three healthcare professionals and two people who use the service

At the last inspection on 8 July 2014 we had not identified any concerns with the service.

Updated 27 February 2016

The service provides care and support for up to four people who may have a learning disability, a mental health condition or physical disabilities.

There was not a registered manager at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. However the provider had taken reasonable steps to ensure the service was well led during the absence of the registered manager and had recruited a new manager who was due to commence work on the 8 February 2016. The provider told us the new manager would be applying to become the registered manager.

Staff were knowledgeable about the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and worked with advocacy agencies, healthcare professionals and family members to ensure decisions made in people’s best interests were appropriately documented.

People were not unlawfully deprived of their liberty without authorisation from the local authority. Staff were knowledgeable about the deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) in place for people and accurately described the content detailed in people’s authorisations.

People were protected from possible harm. Staff were able to identify the different signs of abuse and were knowledgeable about the homes safeguarding processes and procedures. They consistently told us they would contact CQC and the local authority if they felt someone was at risk of abuse. Notifications sent to CQC and discussions with the local authority safeguarding team confirmed this.

Staff interacted with people and showed respect when they delivered care. Healthcare professionals consistently told us staff engaged with people effectively and encouraged people to participate in activities. People’s records documented their hobbies, interests and described what they enjoyed doing in their spare time.

Records showed staff supported people regularly to attend various health related appointments. Examples of these included visits to see the GP, hospital appointments and assessments with other organisations such as the community mental health team.

People received support that met their needs because staff regularly involved them in reviewing their care plans. Records showed reviews took place on a regular basis or when someone’s needs changed.

The service had an open culture where people told us they were encouraged to discuss what was important to them. We consistently observed positive interaction between staff and people.