Background to this inspection
Updated
10 November 2015
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 8 October 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.
Before the inspection we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make and we took this into account when we made the judgements in this report. We also checked if the provider had sent us any notifications since our last visit. These are reports of events and incidents the provider is required to notify us about by law, including unexpected deaths and injuries occurring to people receiving care. We spoke to a health professional who supported people who used the service. We used this information to plan what areas we were going to focus on during our inspection.
During our inspection we spoke with one person who used the service. Due to their specific needs some people were unable to tell us their views of the service however we observed how staff supported people. We spoke with relatives of two people who lived at the home. We also spoke to the registered manager, two members of staff and a health professional who visited to support a person who used the service. We looked at records including three people’s care plans and staff training. We looked at the provider’s records for monitoring the quality of the service and how they responded to issues raised. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.
After our inspection we spoke with the deputy manager and two further members of staff.
Updated
10 November 2015
This inspection took place on 8 October 2015 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in October 2013 the provider was compliant with all the regulations we looked at.
Voyage 1 836 Walsall Road is a residential home which provides care to people who have learning disabilities. The service is registered with the Commission to provide personal care for up to four people and at the time of our inspection there were four people using the service. There was a registered manager at this location. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were kept safe from the risk of harm by staff who could recognise the signs of abuse.
The provider had conducted assessments to identify if people were at risk of harm and how this could be reduced. Staff constantly asked people if they required support and provided reassurance when necessary.
People had their needs and requests responded to promptly. All the relatives and staff we spoke with told us that they felt there were enough staff to meet people’s care needs. Staff vacancies had recently been appointed to and several new members of staff were undergoing an induction process.
Medication was managed safely. Staff were able to explain the provider’s protocols for the administration and reporting of medication errors. The registered manager conducted regular audits and we saw that any errors had been dealt with appropriately.
People were supported by staff who had received regular training and supervisions to maintain their skills and knowledge. Relatives and health professionals who supported people who used the service told us they felt that staff supported people in line with their instructions and care plans.
People were regularly asked by staff if they were happy and how they wanted to be supported. One member of staff showed us a guide to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) which they carried with them as a reminder of their responsibilities to seek the consent of the people they supported.
When people were thought to lack mental capacity the provider had taken the appropriate action to ensure their care did not restrict their movement and rights under the MCA. Decisions about the care people received were made by the people who had the legal right to do so.
A person who used the service told us they enjoyed the food they were given. Staff knew what people liked to eat and demonstrated they knew peoples’ gestures for when they wanted a drink. This enabled people to eat and drink enough.
People said or indicated they were happy to be supported by the service. We observed people had developed caring relationships with the staff who supported them. Relatives said there was a positive atmosphere in the home. People were encouraged by staff to take part in tasks around the home if they wanted. This promoted people’s independence.
Staff supported people to engage in interests they knew were important to them. When requested people had been supported to visit relatives at home and also speak to them on the telephone.
People felt that concerns would be sorted out quickly without the need to resort to the formal complaints process. Relatives told us that any issues were dealt with appropriately and to their satisfaction.
All the people we spoke with were happy to be supported by the service and were pleased with how it was managed. People were encouraged to express their views about the service and felt involved in directing how their care was provided and developed.
The registered manager had obtained and shared examples of good practice from some of the provider’s other locations to ensure the service continued to develop.
The service had a clear leadership structure which staff understood. Staff told us and we saw that they had annual appraisals and regular supervisions to identify how they could best improve the care people received.
The provider had processes for monitoring and improving the quality of the care people received. When an adverse event occurred the registered manager had identified the actions to prevent a similar incident from reoccurring. The provider conducted regular audits and we saw that action plans had been put in place when it was identified improvements were needed.