We inspected Felstead Street on 29 and 30 March 2016, the inspection was unannounced. Our last inspection took place on 24 July 2013 and we found that the provider was meeting all of the regulations that we checked. Felstead Street provides accommodation and care for 24 people with mental health needs. Look Ahead provide the support and an independent landlord owns the property. The building was divided into two separate services. On the ground floor the service provides long-term care for up to 16 people. The first floor provides rehabilitative support for up to eight people to help them prepare for independent living. The first floor was named the Felstead Street Independent Project (FSIP). This floor was overseen by Look Ahead and the community mental health team provided life skills workshops to help people learn independent living skills in the community.
At the time of the inspection there were 24 people living in the service. All the bedrooms had en suite bathrooms in addition to shared bathrooms. There was a large garden and comfortable lounge areas.
The service had a registered manager. 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.
All of the people we spoke to told us they felt safe in the service, however, there were not suitable numbers of staff employed to meet the needs of the people who used the service. This had an impact on the quality of care being provided.
Staff had a good understanding of the safeguarding procedures and followed protection plans to minimise the risk of harm to people. Staff had a good working relationship with the community policing team. Thorough recruitment checks were completed to assess the suitability of the staff employed.
Accidents and incidents were monitored closely through the use of an internal IT system. Prevention measures had been put in place to minimise future re-occurrences of incidents.
Regular testing and servicing of equipment was carried out. The building required repairs and these were reported to the property owner within the appropriate timescales.
People’s medicines were managed safely. Staff were knowledgeable regarding the administration, storage and disposal of medicines.
People told us they liked the food, however safe food hygiene practices were not always followed and maintained.
Menus reflected the diverse cultural needs and preferences of the people who used the service. People were supported to learn cooking skills before moving into their own homes in the community.
Staff had received sufficient training and were assisted with their ongoing learning and development needs. Training was reflective of the needs of the people who used the service.
Where people had been deprived of their liberty for their own safety the provider had taken appropriate steps to apply for authorisation from the local authority and to notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Where people did not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves, the provider had followed a best interests process in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff had completed training in these areas. People’s health care needs were regularly assessed and reviewed.
People told us staff were caring. Important relationships were encouraged and fostered between people; their relatives and friends. People who used the service were informed of their rights and responsibilities of living in the service. Staff encouraged people to take part in the activities that were important to them. People told us they felt motivated to do well.
People’s cultural identity was recognised and valued. Community meetings were held to keep people informed of changes to the service, and obtain their feedback on how their care should be delivered. Staff supported people to develop independent living skills.
People were able to voice their concerns if they were unhappy with any aspect of the service. Complaints had been responded to appropriately when they were raised. There were good systems in place to monitor the quality of services provided.
We found two breaches of regulation relating to the safe care and treatment of people and staffing. You can see what action we asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.