Roland Residential Care Homes - 6 Compton Road

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

People’s personal risks had been assessed and clear guidance provided to staff to enable them to minimise the known risks. There was a clear focus on mental health risk assessments and information on how to maintain mental health well-being.

People received their medicines safely and on time. People received yearly medicines reviews and there were systems in place to audit medicines.

Staff had received training in safeguarding which was refreshed each year. Staff were able to explain different types of abuse and understood how to report any concerns. Staff were safely recruited.

The home had taken steps to ensure that people were protected from the risk of infection.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported to have choice around food and had easy access to drinks. Menus were planned weekly in consultation with people.

We observed warm and friendly interactions between staff and people. Staff knew people well and there was a warm, pleasant atmosphere within the home.

Staff understood how to treat people with dignity and respect and we observed this throughout the inspection.

Care plans were person centred and documented what was important to people and how they wanted their care to be delivered.

The home took time to find out each person’s interest and assisted them to take part in them. There were also in-house activities that people could choose to take part in. People, where appropriate, were supported to access the community.

People’s views on how the home was run was taken into account and people attended residents’ meetings to voice their opinion.

There was a complaints procedure that people and relatives were aware of.

There was good oversight of the home by the registered manager. There were a number of quality assurance audits that helped identify any areas that needed to be addressed, and we saw lessons were learnt from accidents and incidents.

People, relative and staff were positive about the registered manager. The registered manager was visible around the home and people appeared comfortable talking to him.

The home worked in partnership with other healthcare professionals to ensure that people’s individual well-being was supported.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Roland Residential Care Homes, 6 Compton Road, is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for a maximum of seven adults with mental health needs. On the day of inspection there were seven people using the service.

The home did not have a registered manager. However, an interim manager was in place and was present during our inspection. A new manager had been appointed and was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission as 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.

People told us that they felt safe within the home and well supported by staff. We saw positive and friendly interactions between staff and people. People were treated with dignity and respect.

Procedures relating to safeguarding people from harm were in place and staff understood what to do and who to report it to if people were at risk of harm. Staff had an understanding of the systems in place to protect people who could not make decisions and were aware of the legal requirements outlined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People received their medicines safely and on time. People were encouraged to be involved with their medicines and understand what they were for. Staff completed regular medicines audits. Staff had completed training in medicines and administration.

People were supported to maintain a healthy lifestyle and had healthcare appointments that met their needs. These were recorded and monitored on a regular basis.

People were involved in writing their care plans and risk assessments and were able to express their care needs. Care plans were person centred and gave guidance for staff to provide appropriate care.

People’s personal like and dislikes were incorporated into their care plans. People had individual activities timetables that reflected their preferences. The home also provided a wide range of group activities.

Staff were appropriately trained and skilled to care for people. Staff had regular supervision and annual appraisals that helped identify training needs and improve the quality of care

The interim manager was accessible and spent time with people. We were saw that there was an open culture within the home and this was reflected by the staff. Staff felt safe and comfortable raising concerns with the interim manager and felt that they would be listened to.

There were systems in place to identify maintenance issues. Staff were aware of how to report and follow up maintenance.

Audits were carried out across the service on a regular basis that looked at things like, medicines management, health and safety and the quality of care.

There was a complaints procedure as well as incident and accident reporting. Surveys were completed with people who use the service and their relatives. Where issues or concerns were identified, the interim manager used this as an opportunity for change to improve care for people.

People who use the service told us of improvements that they had experienced in their life as a result of living in the service and two people specifically said that this was due to the support of the staff. We observed positive interactions between staff and people using the service throughout the day.

From the records we looked at and from discussion with staff, we were confident that there were processes in place to assess and review the care and support provided for people on a regular basis. We talked with staff who had a good knowledge and understanding of the individual needs of the people using the service and the processes and procedures to ensure that their safety and protection was maintained.

We observed comments in the annual audit from relatives and professionals who said they were pleased with the care being provided.

We observed staff supporting people using the service in a professional and respectful way which demonstrated that they had a good understanding of their individual requirements.