The Coach House

Updated 13 July 2018

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 22 March 2018 and was announced.

The inspection was undertaken by one inspector and one expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone using this type of service. The expert used for this inspection had experience of a family member using this type of service.

Before the inspection, we asked 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. We also reviewed the information available to us about the service such as information from the local authority, information received about the service and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We found that no recent concerns had been raised.

During the inspection we spoke with six people who were being supported at the service and carried out observations of the interactions between staff and people. We also spoke with two members of care staff, one team leader and the acting manager. Following our inspection, we were also contacted by a further two members of staff by telephone.

We reviewed the care records and risk assessments of three people who used the service to ensure these were reflective of people’s current needs. We also reviewed additional information relating to the quality of the service provided to people and how this was monitored and managed to drive future improvement.

On the day of our inspection we were unable to review recruitment records. The records we requested were sent to us on 20 April 2018 by the human resources department from the provider organisation. These records were reviewed on 26 April 2018.

Updated 13 July 2018

The Coach House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The Coach House provides care and support to up to ten people with mental health needs. The service is part of a converted manor house; with another service run by the same provider organisation in the other part of the building. At the time of our inspection there were nine people being supported by the service.

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.

The service does not have a registered manager. An acting manager had been appointed in January 2018 who was also responsible for the service run by the provider organisation on the same site. They had not commenced the process to register with the Commission. 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.

Why the service is rated Good

People felt safe at the service. Staff had received relevant training on how to safeguard people and understood their responsibilities to report any concerns.

Risks to people’s safety and well-being were consistently identified and managed without restricting people’s freedom. Assessments were in place that gave guidance to staff on how individual risks to people could be reduced. Medicines were stored appropriately, managed safely and audits completed.

Relevant pre-employment checks had been completed for all staff and safe recruitment practices followed. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people's needs.

Staff had attended relevant training to undertake their role and spoke positively about the training they were provided. Most staff received regular supervisions and felt supported in their roles; however, staff had not received appraisals.

People told us that staff were friendly and respectful. Staff knew people well and were knowledgeable with regards to people’s support needs, what was important to them and their preferred daily routines. People's privacy and dignity was promoted throughout their support and their consent was gained.

People had their needs assessed and were involved in the planning of how their support would be delivered. Care and support plans and associated risk assessments had been regularly reviewed to ensure that they were reflective of people's current needs.

People were encouraged to provide feedback on the service they received and knew how to make a complaint. People received relevant information regarding the services available to them.

People were not aware who the acting manager was but spoke positively with regards to the team leaders who they considered as the management of the service.

Quality assurance systems were in place and regular audits completed however it was not clear how these were used to develop the service provided.

Staff were encouraged to attend team meetings which were held regularly but did not always feel listened to.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.