Archived: Longley Meadows

Updated 11 May 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.

This inspection took place on 16 and 24 February 2016 and was announced. 24 hours’ notice of the inspection was given because the service is small and we needed to be sure that someone would be in, and the manager would be available. The inspection was undertaken by two adult social care inspectors and a pharmacy inspector. On the first day of the inspection there were three people using the service and on the second day six people were using the service.

We contacted five relatives of people using the respite service by telephone. We spoke with the acting manager, assistant service director, two nurses and four support staff. We also observed how staff interacted and gave support to people throughout this visit.

We did not ask the provider to send us 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 also reviewed all the information we held about the home including notifications that had been sent to us from the home. We also spoke with the Sheffield City council monitoring officer who also undertakes periodic visits to the home. We spoke with local safeguarding staff to assess how the service responded to allegations of abuse.

We looked at documentation relating to people who used the service, staff and the management of the service. We looked at three people’s written records, including the plans of their care. We also looked at the systems used to manage people’s medication, including the storage and records kept. We also looked at the quality assurance systems to check if they were robust and identified areas for improvement.

Updated 11 May 2016

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of this service on 17 and 20 November 2014 where we identified breaches of legal requirements. This was because people were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place for the safe administration and recording of medicines. There was also a breach because the provider did not have an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people’ received. Nor did they have an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.

After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches. We undertook a comprehensive inspection on the 16 and 24 February 2016 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met all of the legal requirements. 24 hours’ notice of the inspection was given because the service is small and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Longley Meadows’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’

Longley Meadows is in the grounds of the Northern General Hospital and provides short stay respite accommodation for adults with learning difficulties. Many of the people accessing the service have profound and multiple learning difficulties, including multiple health needs and physical disabilities. The service can provide care for up to nine people at any one time. 39 people use the service in total.

The service did not have 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was an acting manager in post at the time of the inspection however she had only worked at the service for two weeks.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were in place to protect people who may not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. However, we found there was not sufficient detail recorded about how consent and best interest decisions were achieved for the use of assistive technology in people’s bedrooms.

Our check of medication records identified that medicines were not always safely managed and recorded. This meant that people accessing the service may not be protected against the risks associated with the unsafe management of medication.

The support plans were centred on people’s individual needs and contained information about their preferences, backgrounds and interests. People were treated with dignity and respect throughout our inspection. Staff were aware of people’s differing cultural and religious needs.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff and there was a programme of training, supervision and appraisal to support staff to meet people’s needs. Procedures in relation to

recruitment and retention of staff were robust and ensured only suitable people were employed in the service.

Our observations, together with our conversations with relatives of people who used the service provided evidence that the service was caring. The staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of the differing needs of people staying at the home and we saw they responded to people in a caring, sensitive, patient and understanding professional manner.

People’s physical health needs were monitored and referrals were made when needed to health

professionals. People were supported to access existing day time and evening activities during respite stays at Longley Meadows. The service had an open and transparent culture that actively encouraged feedback from people who used the service, their relatives and staff.

We saw there was a complaints procedure that could be accessed by people who used the service and their relatives. Staff told us they would offer assistance if people needed to use it. We saw that the complaints procedure was written in plain English which described how people should raise any concerns they may have. It also explained to people how they could obtain an independent person to assist them if needed.

We found there were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. However, these were not always effective.

Our inspection identified three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.