Archived: No 10 Fifth Row

Updated 4 February 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 checked 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 18 December 2015 and was announced. We announced the inspection 48 hours prior to calling. This was to ensure that people would be at home on the day that we visited.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector. This was because the location supports only two people and we were aware that the environment was their home. We did not want to distress people living at the home by visiting with a number of colleagues.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home, in particular notifications about incidents, accidents, safeguarding matters and any deaths. We contacted the local Healthwatch group, the local authority contracts team, the local authority safeguarding adults team and the local Clinical Commissioning Group. We used their comments to support the planning of the inspection.

We did not request a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to the inspection. 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.

People living at the home were not always able to speak with us but indicated they were happy at the home. We spoke with the general manager and a support worker on duty at the time of the inspection. Additionally, after the inspection we conducted telephone interviews with a relative of a person who used the service. We also contacted people’s care managers.

We observed care and support being delivered in communal areas. We also looked in the kitchen areas, bath/shower rooms, toilet areas and checked people’s individual accommodation. We inspected exterior areas of the home. We reviewed a range of documents and records including; two care records for people who used the service, two medicine administration records, three records of staff employed at the home, complaints records, accidents and incident records, and a range of other management and safety records.

Updated 4 February 2016

This inspection took place on 18 December 2015 and was announced. A previous inspection undertaken in June 2014 found there were no breaches of legal requirements.

10 Fifth Row is one of four locations owned and run by Mr J & Mrs D Cole and is situated in the village of Linton, near Ashington. It provides accommodation for up to two people with a learning disability, who require assistance with personal care and support. At the time of the inspection there were two people living at the home.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in place. Our records showed she had been formally registered with the Commission since October 2010. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 was not available at the time of the inspection but we were supported by the provider’s general manager.

People who lived at the home were not always able to communicate with us or did not wish to speak with us. We asked one person if they liked living at the home and they indicated that they did. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding issues and said they would report any concerns to the registered manager or general manager. The premises was maintained and appropriate safety certificates were in place and available for inspection.

Staffing levels were maintained to support the individual needs of people living at the home. Staff said they felt there were enough staff available to provide adequate support. Appropriate recruitment procedures and checks were in place to ensure staff employed at the home had the correct skills and experience. Medicines were stored and disposed of safely. Records related to the safe management of medicines were up to date.

Staff said they were able to access a range of training including on-line courses and face to face sessions. Areas covered included first aid, moving and handling and food hygiene. They told us they had access to regular supervision and appraisals.

A range of food was provided at the home. Weekly menus had been devised and a range of meals were offered. The general manager told us that because of the size of the home meals could reflect people’s individual likes. We observed people had access to food and drink throughout the day.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. MCA is a law that protects and supports people who do not have ability to make their own decisions and to ensure decisions are made in their ‘best interests’ it also ensures unlawful restrictions are not placed on people in care homes and hospitals. People living at the home had capacity to make decisions and therefore applications under the DoLS guidance were not required. Records showed that consent was sought from people and that their capacity to consent was considered and the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) was applied appropriately.

We noted the decoration of the home was in need of refreshing in some areas. The carpet on the stairs was slightly worn. The general manager confirmed refurbishment of the home was an on-going process. The outside of the property was well maintained and people had access to a secure garden area.

We observed staff treated people well and people living at the home appeared happy and relaxed. Staff had a good understanding of people’s individual needs, likes and dislikes. People had access to general practitioners, dentists and a range of other health professionals to help maintain their wellbeing. People were supported to participate in activities they liked or to go out on trips and visits.

People had individualised care plans that were detailed and addressed their identified needs and considered risks associated with the delivery of care. A new care planning system had recently been introduced. There had been no recent formal complaints.

The general manager said that because the home was small and was regularly visited, any matters that needed addressing were dealt with on an immediate basis. He had recently introduced a monthly audit process that checked that care plans were up to date and the premises were safe.