Archived: PSS Watford Road

Updated 13 January 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.

The inspection took place on 18 November 2015 and was announced. 48 hours’ notice of the inspection was given because the service is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector.

We reviewed the information we held about the service before we carried out the visit. Before the inspection, we usually ask 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. We did not make this request before this inspection.

We looked at the notifications and other information the Care Quality Commission had received about the service.

During our inspection we spoke with two people who lived in the home. One of the people was displaying signs of anxiety and was not asked for any detailed responses. Staff told us that they were a very private person that was reluctant to engage in conversation. This was reflected in the person’s care records. We spoke with the registered manager and one support worker and a relative of a person who lived in the home and sought their feedback on the service. We also spoke with a visiting healthcare professional.

We spent time observing the care provided to people who lived at the home to help us understand their experiences of the service. Our observations showed people appeared relaxed and at ease with the staff.

We viewed a range of records including: the care records for the people who lived at the home, two staff files, records relating the running of the home and policies and procedures of the company.

We carried out a tour of the premises, viewing communal areas such as the lounge, dining room and bathrooms. We also looked at the kitchen and the bedrooms of people who lived in the home.

Updated 13 January 2016

This inspection took place on 18 November 2015 and was announced.

16 Watford Road is a small care home accommodating up to three people who require support and personal care. The service specialises in caring for people who need support around mental health needs. On the day of the inspection there were two people living in the home.

There was a registered manager in post at the service. ‘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.’

People told us that they felt safe living in the home and with accessing the local community. Staff were able to explain the risks associated with abuse and discrimination. Risks had been reviewed with the involvement of the person. A positive approach to risk taking was used to promote independence. Risk had been reviewed following incidents.

We saw that staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of the people living in the home. There was one care worker on duty at all times. This was supplemented by the presence of the registered manager for part of the week.

Staff were recruited, trained and supported in accordance with best practice. We found that appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began working at the home. We saw that references regarding people’s previous employment had been obtained and appropriate checks had been carried out prior to new members of staff working at the home. Staff were required to complete a probationary period which had to be signed-off by the registered manager. We saw records which confirmed that staff were given monthly supervision and an annual appraisal.

Staff were skilled and knowledgeable about their roles and the needs of the people living in the home. They were required to complete an extensive programme of training and induction. This included mandatory (required) training and training which was more specific and suited to the needs of people living in the home.

Medicines were stored and administered safely. People were supported to self-administer medicines with staff support to monitor that this had been done correctly.

People were supported in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

We saw that people had access to regular meals and drinks and were encouraged to prepare their own refreshments.

Care records were detailed and subject to regular review. People living in the home had a person-centred plan which told staff how they wanted to be supported and what their goals were.

Staff spoke about the people they supported in a positive and caring way and they told us they cared about people’s wellbeing.

We saw that people who lived at the home were involved in decisions when they needed to be made about what to do each day and what to eat. They were able to clearly communicate their needs and choices to staff.

The service had a complaints policy in place and processes were in place to record and investigate any complaints received.

People living in the home were encouraged to provide feedback through regular meetings. Surveys were issued to people and their families each year to gather information and assess satisfaction.

The home had a clear set of visions and values which were displayed in posters and other promotional materials. These visions and values were clearly linked to organisational strategy and used as one of the criteria on which quality was assessed. Staff were able to explain the visions and values of the services and applied them in their practice.

Staff understood their roles and the purpose of the home and were motivated in supporting people towards independence and to deliver quality care. We saw that staff encouraged people to be independent in all matters, but remained conscious of risk.

People were encouraged to develop links and activities within the local community.

Quality was discussed at all formal meetings including staff supervisions and review meetings. The reporting requirements for the quality assurance framework focused on a range of key performance indicators (KPI) which were mapped to the regulatory framework.