Archived: 1 Wharf Close

Updated 23 March 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.

The inspection was announced and took place on the 07 and 12 January 2015. We gave 24 hours notice due to people living at the service often attending daily activities or outings and the risk of no one being present.

The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

Before the inspection the provider completed 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 details of any improvements they plan to make. The provider had completed this form and returned it within the set timespan given.

As part of our inspection we also reviewed other information we hold about the service. This included notifications, which are events happening in the service that the provider is required to tell us about. We used this information to plan what we were going to focus on during our inspection.

During our inspection we spoke with the registered manager and four members of the care staff. We also spoke with a visiting advocate of one of the people.

Not everyone who used the service was able to communicate verbally with us. Due to this we observed people, spoke with staff, reviewed records and looked at other information which helped us to assess how their care needs were being met. We spent time observing care in the communal area. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspectors (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not talk to us.

As part of the inspection we reviewed two people’s care records. This included their care plans and risk assessments. We looked at the files of two staff members staff support records.

We also looked at the service’s policies, their audits, the staff rotas, complaint and compliment records, medication records and training and supervision records.

Updated 23 March 2015

The inspection took place on the 07 and 12 January 2015.

Wharf Close is one of a number of services owned by Family Mosaic Housing. The service provides accommodation and support for up to four people who have a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder, and physical or sensory disabilities.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manager 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 were treated with dignity and respect and staff interacted with people in a kind, caring and sensitive manner. Staff showed a good knowledge of safeguarding procedures and were clear about the actions they would take to protect people.

There was a regular and consistent staff team. The provider had appropriate recruitment checks in place which helped to protect people and ensure staff were suitable to work at the service. There were sufficient numbers of skilled, well trained and qualified staff on duty. Staff told us that they felt well supported in their role and we saw that staff had received regular supervision and training.

We found that detailed assessments had been carried out and that the care plans were very well developed around each individual’s needs and preferences. We saw that there were risk assessments in place and plans on how the risks were to be managed. People were supported with taking every day risks and encouraged to take part in daily activities and outings.

We saw that appropriate assessments had been carried out where people living at the service were not able to make decisions for themselves, to help ensure their rights were protected.

People were happy and relaxed with staff. People were able to raise concerns and there were systems in place to ensure people could be confident they would be listened to and appropriate action was taken.

People’s medication was well managed and this helped to ensure that people received their medication safely.

People were supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs and were offered choice.

We found that people’s healthcare was good. People had access to a range of healthcare providers such as their GP, dentists, chiropodists and opticians.

The provider had an effective quality assurance systems in place. People had the opportunity to feedback on their experiences. Staff tried to involve people in day to day decisions and the running of the service. The service was well managed.