The inspection took place on the 13 November 2015. The inspection was unannounced. At the last inspection of the home in October 2013 the service was compliant with all of the regulations assessed.
Ann Mangham provides accommodation and support for up to ten people with mental health needs. There were nine people living at the service on the day of the inspection. The service mainly provides guidance and supervision to promote an independent lifestyle.
The home does not need a registered manager as it is run by the registered provider Ann Mangham. 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 home had safeguarding policies and procedures in place to support staff and staff told us that they would have no hesitation in raising any concerns regarding people’s safety and welfare. The people we spoke with unanimously told us that they felt safe living at the service.
Risks were identified and recorded in people’s individual care plans and people were supported to take responsible risks. Regular checks were carried out on the premises to ensure that they were safe.
People told us there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty. People spoke highly of the staff and we observed warm, friendly interactions between them. We saw that staff went through a thorough recruitment regime before employment commenced. Recruitment checks were completed before staff commenced employment.
People received their medication safely. They were supported to manage their own medicines where possible.
The home was clean and smelt pleasant. Some minor improvements were agreed with the registered provider to further reduce any risks of infection.
People had an assessment to see whether the home was suitable and people were positive about the care and support they received.
Staff received appropriate induction, training and support to help them in their roles. People told us that staff were skilled in caring for people. Staff told us that training supported them in caring for people effectively.
People were supported to make their own decisions and where they were not able to do so, meetings were held to ensure that decisions were made in the person’s best interests. If it was considered that people were being deprived of their liberty, the correct authorisations had been applied for. Their consent was sought regarding all aspects of their care.
People told us that they enjoyed the food and that their likes and dislikes were considered.
People were supported to attend health appointments and appropriate referrals were made where people required support with any aspect of their health. Information regarding people’s health and welfare was recorded in their care records.
The home was individually furnished and decorated. People personalised their rooms to make them more homely. However we found that the garage which was being used as a gym and a laundry had a hole in the floor and this room had not been decorated or risk assessed to ensure it was safe for people to use.
People consistently told us they were well cared for and said they were treated with dignity and respect and we observed this throughout our visit. People were encouraged to be independent and we saw people come and go throughout the day. People chose how to spend their time. People told us their views and opinions were sought and we saw that advocacy was accessed where someone required support with this. This helped to ensure that people’s views and opinions could be taken into account.
People told us that the service responded to their needs. People’s care needs were reviewed and records maintained. People had detailed care plans which recorded how they wanted to be cared for. It was not always evident that people were signing their agreement to any changes in care.
People told us they could choose how to spend their time. We observed people choosing what they wanted to do and where they wanted to go. Eight of the people living at the service went out independently. There were few structured activities or groups taking place however people told us that they were happy with the way they spent their time.
People told us they were able to complain and raise any issues with the staff or management.
People spoke positively of the staff and management and it was evident that people living at the service knew the registered provider and staff well.
People’s views and opinions were sought and the deputy manager had implemented a new quality monitoring system aimed to monitor all aspects of quality at the service. We saw that people’s views and suggestions were responded to.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.