• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Royal Mencap Society - 155-157 Upperton Road

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

155-157 Upperton Road, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE3 0HF

Provided and run by:
Royal Mencap Society

All Inspections

29 July 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection visit took place on 29 July and 1 August 2016. The visit was unannounced.

155 Upperton Road is a residential home which provides care to people with learning difficulties. It is registered to provide care for up to eight people. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People using the service we spoke with said they thought the home was safe, although this view was not shared by one relative and a social worker for one person living in the home. Staffing levels were not always sufficient to ensure people's safety.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and understood their responsibilities in this area.

People's risk assessments provided staff with information on how to support people safely.

People using the service told us they thought their medicines were given safely and on time.

Staff were subject to character checks to ensure they were appropriate to work with the people who used the service.

Staff had been trained to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs.

Staff understood their main responsibility under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to allow, as much as possible, people to have an effective choice about how they lived their lives.

People had plenty to eat and drink and everyone told us they liked the food served.

People's health care needs had been protected by referrals to health care professionals when necessary.

People told us they liked the staff and got on well with them. We saw many examples of staff working with people in a friendly and caring way, although we witnessed one situation where this was not the case and one relative had a previous concern about the attitude of one staff member.

People and their representatives were involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.

Care plans were individual to the people using the service and covered their health and social care needs.

Activities were organised to provide stimulation for people and they took part in activities in the community if they chose.

People told us they would tell staff if they had any concerns and were confident these would be followed up.

People, staff and most relatives we spoke with were satisfied with how the home was run by the registered manager. One relative and one social worker had concerns about the provision of care to one person.

Management carried out audits and checks to ensure the home was running properly to meet people's needs, though not all essential issues had been audited.

27 July 2015

During a routine inspection

155 –157 Upperton Road is owned by The Royal Mencap Society. The service is situated in Leicester, and provides care and support for up to eight people over the age of 18 years with learning disabilities and autism. At the time of this inspection there were seven people accommodated.

This inspection took place on 27 and 29 July 2015.

A registered manager was in place. 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.

Since our previous inspection in September 2014, we had received information from the local authority safeguarding team which had partially substantiated issues of a person not being moved to in a safe way. The provider had acknowledged this and had responded to the issue to ensure staff followed proper procedures to protect the safety of people.

People and their relatives said they felt safe in the service.

Testing of fire systems was in place.

Risk assessments to keep people safe were not fully in place.

Staff had received training on how to protect people who used the service from abuse or harm. They demonstrated they were aware of their role and responsibilities in keeping people as safe as possible.

The Commission had not been informed of all situations of abuse to people which meant that we were not able to take monitoring action to prevent these situations.

Staffing levels protected people's safety but were not sufficient to ensure people had full opportunities for stimulating activities.

We found people received their prescribed medication in a safe way by staff trained in medication administration.

Detailed risk assessments had not always been undertaken to inform staff of how to manage and minimise risks to people from happening.

The provider supported staff by an induction and ongoing support, training and development. However, comprehensive training had not been provided to all staff, although we saw evidence this had been planned for the near future.

The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) is legislation that protects people who may lack capacity to consent to their care and treatment. We found examples where the manager was not following this legislation, which informed us that people’s capacity to consent to specific decisions had not been fully appropriately assessed.

People received a choice of what to eat and drink and they liked the food provided.

People who used the service and relatives told us they found staff to be caring and friendly. Our observations found staff to be friendly and attentive to people’s individual needs.

Staff had read people's care plans so they were aware of how to provide care to people that met their needs.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible. People had their rights respected in terms of privacy and dignity.

Activities were provided though provision was limited and needed to be expanded to include all people's assessed preferences.

All complaints had been followed up though the complaints procedure.

The provider had internal quality and monitoring procedures in place. These needed to be expanded and strengthened to prove that necessary identified actions had been implemented.

The manager enabled staff to share their views about how the service was provided by way of staff meetings and supervision.

Some staff said management provided good support to them. Others said the manager needed to discuss and agree behavioural support plans with them to ensure these were properly planned and carried out.

25 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We did not speak with people who used the service as part of this follow up inspection. Please see our previous report for people's views about the service.

Our inspection of 14 May 2013 found that people were not protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines. At this inspection we found the provider had made sufficient improvements to achieve compliance with this standard.

14 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We were unable to speak with some people who used the service as they were at day care activities during our inspection. We were unable to communicate with other people during our visit due to their complex needs. We spoke with one person who told us they liked living at Upperton Road and were able to choose how they spent their time. We saw that staff interacted positively with people and treated them with dignity and respect. During our visit we saw that staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible.

We found that care was provided in accordance with peoples' wishes.

We looked at the support plans and records of three people who used the service and found support plans were detailed and thorough and provided clear guidance to staff about how the persons' care should be delivered.

People were not protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines. This was because staff had not fully completed records when PRN medication was administered, the service had not followed its own policy when a medication error had occurred and there were no appropriate or secure facilities for medicines that required cold storage

Staff had been appropriately screened to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of people who used the service.

Records were stored securely and could be located promptly when required.

.

18 June 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with people using the service about a range of issues. People told us they were supported to make choices and maintain their independence. One person told us they had been supported to arrange a short break to Edinburgh and another person told us that he had chosen the colour and style of the sofas in the living room.

One person said, 'I've got my own room and I grow tomatoes and strawberries'.

People were all positive about their experiences. People said 'I'm happy', 'it's my home', 'it's nice, I like it' and 'I chose this home'.

Everyone we spoke with was aware of their support plan and one person told us that their keyworker helps them with it.

24 June 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

During our visit one person said they wished to go out a local shop to buy some food. A member of staff was quickly on hand to support this person. Another person using the service told us 'I can go out when I want to'. Another person said 'I am going out to a disco tonight'.

We asked people using the service if they felt safe. We were told 'yes I feel very safe' and 'I like it here and I feel safe. The staff keep my money for me'.

People using the service told us they found the manager to be very friendly and approachable. One person told us 'I see the manager every day and I think they do a good job'.