Archived: Flat 1 Cobham House

Updated 30 December 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 10 December 2015 and was announced. We gave very short notice about the inspection; we telephoned the day before to make sure people at the service would be there to speak with us. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. This was because the service only provided support and care to a small number of people.

Before the inspection we reviewed records held by CQC which included notifications, complaints and any safeguarding concerns. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. This enabled us to ensure we were addressing potential areas of concern at the inspection.

On this occasion we did not 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. This was because we inspected this service sooner than we had planned to.

As part of our inspection we spoke with one person at the service, the registered manager, one relative and one member of staff. We observed staff carrying out their duties, such as supporting people to go out, and helping them with their lunch and drinks.

We reviewed a variety of documents, which included one person’s care plans, training information, staff files, medicines records and some policies and procedures in relation to the running of the service.

We last inspected Flat 1, Cobham House on 6 November 2013 under the previous provider Solor Care South East, when no concerns were identified.

Updated 30 December 2015

This inspection took place on 10 December 2015, was announced and carried out by one inspector.

Flat 1, Cobham House, provides personal care and support to people who may have learning disabilities and complex needs. The service is a flat close to the centre of Dover. There are en suite bedroom facilities, a lounge with dining area, kitchen and staff room.

There was a registered manager in post who was present at the inspection. The registered manager also managed another Voyage 1 service close by. 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.

The registered manager had a good oversight of the service. They led by example and promoted the ethos of the service, which was to support people to achieve their full potential and to be as independent as possible. Regular checks of the safety and quality of the service were carried out. The registered manager and staff listened to peoples’ views and opinions, and acted on them.

There were enough staff on duty to meet peoples’ needs during the day and staffing levels were being reviewed during the night to ensure that people’s needs would be fully met. Staff were recruited safely and a full training programme was in place to ensure they had the skills and competencies to carry out their role. New staff had induction training, which included shadowing experienced staff, until they were competent to work on their own.

Staff said they were well supported by the registered manager, who was approachable at any time. They told us they received regular one to one meetings to discuss their work and had an annual appraisal to discuss their training and development needs.

Staff understood how to report any concerns. They knew the possible signs of abuse and how to alert the registered manager or the local authority safeguarding team. Plans were in place to ensure people remained safe in an emergency, such as fire or flood.

Risks to people were managed and supported so that people were not restricted. People were encouraged to achieve their personal goals and have a meaningful life. Care and support plans were kept under regular review so that people continued to receive the right care and support they needed.

People received their medicine safely and were supported to attend health care appointments as required. Detailed health care plans ensure that people remained as healthy as possible. When required, support and assessment was sought from health care professionals, such as doctors or the mental health team. Their advice was acted on to make sure people were kept as healthy as possible.

People were happy with the care and support they received. Care and support plans were personalised with detailed information for staff to follow to make sure people choices and preferences were upheld. People and their relatives had been involved in planning the care.

The registered manager and staff understood how the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 was applied to ensure decisions made for people without capacity were only made in their best interests. CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. These safeguards protect the rights of people using services by ensuring that if there are any restrictions to their freedom and liberty, these have been agreed by the local authority as being required to protect the person from harm. No DoLs applications had been made to the relevant supervisory body in line with guidance as no-one required one.

People were encouraged to have a healthy diet. They were involved in the menu planning and were regularly consulted about their food preferences.

People were treated with respect and dignity. Staff treated people in a dignified manner, promoted their independence and respected their choices. Staff were very knowledgeable about people living at the service and were able to talk about what was important to them. They approached people in a calm and assuring manner and people responded positively.

People were supported to carry out activities of their choice. They told us what activities they enjoyed and what they had planned for the day. There was a calm inclusive atmosphere in the service with lots of jovial banter and conversations throughout the day.

The complaints procedure was on display in a format that was accessible to people. People, staff and relatives felt confident that if they did make a complaint they would be listened to and action would be taken.

Feedback about the service had been sought from people, relatives, staff and outside professionals to promote and drive improvements in the service.