The inspection visit took place on the 9th February 2015. This was an unannounced inspection which meant that the staff and provider did not know that we would be visiting.
We last inspected the service on 26 November 2013 and found the service was not in breach of any regulations at that time.
58 Ormesby Road provides care and support for up to six people who live with a learning disability. There were six people living at the service at the time of our inspection. The home does not provide nursing care. The detached house is situated in North Ormesby, close to all amenities and transport links.
There is a registered manager in post, although they manage additional services run by the provider so are not at Ormesby Road full-time. 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. On the day of our inspection the registered manager was at the service.
One person told us; “I like it here” when we spoke with them but other people using the service were not able to communicate with us so we observed staff interaction with them which was positive and caring.
We observed that people were encouraged to participate in activities that were meaningful to them. For example, one person had been out bowling with a support worker. We observed a good handover between staff members both before and after the activity so that staff were aware of whether this person had enjoyed the activity or not.
The registered manager told us that everyone at the service had an application for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard with the authorising body but there was no documentation to confirm if these had been approved or not at this stage and there was no evidence of applications being submitted in the care files that we viewed.. We also stated to the manager that the Care Quality Commission (CQC) should have been notified of the applications being submitted.
We were told that staff were recruited safely and were given appropriate training before they commenced employment. Some records from the provider’s Human Resources department could not be located in staff files as to their suitability to commence employment. We had to verify this information after the inspection with staff from the HR division. Staff had also received more specific training in managing the needs of people who used the service such as the management of epilepsy and positively supporting people when they displayed behaviour that challenged. Training records were not complete which meant that a record of exactly what training staff had completed at the service were not available.
There were sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of the people and the staff team were supportive of the registered manager and of each other. Medicines were also stored and administered in a safe manner.
There was a programme of staff supervision in place and records of these were detailed and showed the home worked with staff to identify and support their personal and professional development.
We saw people’s care plans were person centred and had been well assessed. The home had developed care plans and communication aids to help people be involved in how they wanted their care and support to be delivered. We saw people were being given choices and encouraged to take part in all aspects of day to day life at the home, from going to day services to helping to make their lunch. One person had very recently transitioned into the home and we saw this had been planned and assessed so it was as smooth as possible.
The service encouraged people to maintain their independence. People were supported to be involved in the local community as much as possible and were supported to independently use public transport and accessing regular facilities such as the local G.P, shops and leisure facilities.
Although there were regular medicines audits there was not a system in place for checking the quality and safety of the service being provided. Policies were not up to date and the last quality check on the service had been carried out in August 2014 and there was no record of any actions required or completed after this check.
Records within the service that related to incomplete staff recruitment files, policies being out of date, training records not reflecting what had been provided and aspects of person centred review action plans not being carried forward into care plan for monitoring and other documents such as cleaning charts not being fully completed meant that the service was not keeping records up to date.
We saw a regular programme of staff meetings where issues where shared and raised and staff told us they were able to raise comments on where the service could improve. The service had an easy read complaints procedure and staff told us how they could recognise if someone was unhappy. This showed the service listened to the views of people.
We found the provider was breaching a number of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we took at the back of the full version of this report.
The inspection visit took place on the 9th February 2015. This was an unannounced inspection which meant that the staff and provider did not know that we would be visiting.
We last inspected the service on 26 November 2013 and found the service was not in breach of any regulations at that time.
58 Ormesby Road provides care and support for up to six people who live with a learning disability. There were six people living at the service at the time of our inspection. The home does not provide nursing care. The detached house is situated in North Ormesby, close to all amenities and transport links.
There is a registered manager in post, although they manage additional services run by the provider so are not at Ormesby Road full-time. 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. On the day of our inspection the registered manager was at the service.
One person told us; “I like it here” when we spoke with them but other people using the service were not able to communicate with us so we observed staff interaction with them which was positive and caring.
We observed that people were encouraged to participate in activities that were meaningful to them. For example, one person had been out bowling with a support worker. We observed a good handover between staff members both before and after the activity so that staff were aware of whether this person had enjoyed the activity or not.
The registered manager told us that everyone at the service had an application for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard with the authorising body but there was no documentation to confirm if these had been approved or not at this stage and there was no evidence of applications being submitted in the care files that we viewed.. We also stated to the manager that the Care Quality Commission (CQC) should have been notified of the applications being submitted.
We were told that staff were recruited safely and were given appropriate training before they commenced employment. Some records from the provider’s Human Resources department could not be located in staff files as to their suitability to commence employment. We had to verify this information after the inspection with staff from the HR division. Staff had also received more specific training in managing the needs of people who used the service such as the management of epilepsy and positively supporting people when they displayed behaviour that challenged. Training records were not complete which meant that a record of exactly what training staff had completed at the service were not available.
There were sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of the people and the staff team were supportive of the registered manager and of each other. Medicines were also stored and administered in a safe manner.
There was a programme of staff supervision in place and records of these were detailed and showed the home worked with staff to identify and support their personal and professional development.
We saw people’s care plans were person centred and had been well assessed. The home had developed care plans and communication aids to help people be involved in how they wanted their care and support to be delivered. We saw people were being given choices and encouraged to take part in all aspects of day to day life at the home, from going to day services to helping to make their lunch. One person had very recently transitioned into the home and we saw this had been planned and assessed so it was as smooth as possible.
The service encouraged people to maintain their independence. People were supported to be involved in the local community as much as possible and were supported to independently use public transport and accessing regular facilities such as the local G.P, shops and leisure facilities.
Although there were regular medicines audits there was not a system in place for checking the quality and safety of the service being provided. Policies were not up to date and the last quality check on the service had been carried out in August 2014 and there was no record of any actions required or completed after this check.
Records within the service that related to incomplete staff recruitment files, policies being out of date, training records not reflecting what had been provided and aspects of person centred review action plans not being carried forward into care plan for monitoring and other documents such as cleaning charts not being fully completed meant that the service was not keeping records up to date.
We saw a regular programme of staff meetings where issues where shared and raised and staff told us they were able to raise comments on where the service could improve. The service had an easy read complaints procedure and staff told us how they could recognise if someone was unhappy. This showed the service listened to the views of people.
We found the provider was breaching a number of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we took at the back of the full version of this report.