Archived: Condover House

Updated 24 October 2014

We carried an inspection at Condover House on 8 July 2014. The inspection was unannounced, which meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming.

This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?’

The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.

This inspection was carried out by an inspector and an Expert by Experience of people with a learning disability. An Expert-by-Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before our inspection we looked at and reviewed the provider’s information return. This is information we have asked the provider to send us and how they are meeting the requirements of the five key questions.

We spoke with six people living at the home, five relatives, six care staff and the registered manager. We also spoke with a community nurse and a doctor. Not everyone who used the service was able to communicate verbally with us. We used staff, people’s care plans, our observations and other information to help us to gain people’s experiences.

We looked at four people’s care records. We also looked at how the quality of the service was measured by looking at audits that had been carried out, staff meeting minutes and any feedback and complaints from relatives or carers.

This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?

The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.

Updated 24 October 2014

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 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

This was an unannounced inspection. It was last inspected in December 2013 and no areas of concern were identified.

Condover House provides accommodation and personal care in four houses for up to 21 adults with a learning disability or autism. Three houses accommodate people for long term care and one house accommodates people for respite care. There were 13 people living at Condover House when we visited. There was also one person in respite.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We saw that there were policies and procedures in relation to the MCA and DoLS to ensure that people who could make decisions for themselves were protected. We saw from the records we looked at that where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about something, that best interest meetings were held.

We looked at care plans for four of the people that lived there. They covered a range of needs and had been reviewed regularly to ensure that staff had up to date information. There were also detailed assessments about the person's health that included specific care plans.  We observed that staff were able to support people with dignity and respect in a safe and caring manner. We found that people who needed help to manage their anxiety were effectively supported by staff. We saw that when required other health professionals had been involved to help develop strategies for doing this.

Care records we looked and what we observed demonstrated to us that the social and daily activities that were provided had been decided upon by each person. For example we saw that some people chose to go shopping for items for their home. We saw that staff then supported people to do this activity.

Systems were in place to monitor and review people’s experiences and complaints to ensure improvements were made where necessary. Staff supported people to communicate their wishes and views, including for people who could not speak. For example we observed that Makaton (a form of sign language) was being used with a person who could not speak.

All of the professionals, relatives and staff felt that the service was well led. There were systems in place to ensure that the provider was able to monitor the quality and safety of the service that was provided.