Archived: Royal Mencap Society - 29 Firgrove Hill

On the day of our visit there was a registered manager in post. 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.

People’s needs were met because there were enough staff at the service. Accidents and incidents with people were recorded on the service computer with a written copy kept in a file. Staff had knowledge of safeguarding adult’s procedures and what to do if they suspected any type of abuse. Staff had undergone recruitment checks before they started work.

People’s medicines were administered and stored safely. One member of staff told us that they had been trained to support people with their medicines.

Risks had been assessed and managed appropriately to keep people safe which included the environment. The risk assessments for people were detailed and informative and included measures that had been introduced to reduce the risk of harm.

In the event of an emergency, such as the building being flooded or a fire, there was a service contingency plan which detailed what staff needed to do to protect people and make them safe.

People’s human rights were protected because the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) were followed. There was evidence of mental capacity assessments specific to particular decisions that needed to be made.

People were supported by staff that were knowledgeable and supported in their role. Staff had received all the appropriate training for their role and their competencies were regularly assessed.

People were supported to maintain healthy lifestyles. Where people needed effective systems were in place to monitor their nutrition and hydration. Staff were regularly weighing people.

People had access to a range of health care professionals, such as the consultants, dietician and GP. It was clear to them that staff understood people’s conditions.

Staff interacted with people in a kind and respectful way. One member of staff said “I enjoy it here very much, I like that I’m needed and that I can help people.”

People were involved in planning their care. We saw that care plans had detail around people’s backgrounds and personal history and included people’s views on what they wanted. Staff knew and understood what was important to the person and supported them to maintain their interests.

People were supported by staff who understood their needs. Where it had been identified that a person’s needs had changed staff were providing the most up to date care. People were able to take part in activities which they enjoyed and were supported to live as independently as they could.

There was a complaints procedure in place for people to access if they needed to and this was in a pictorial format for people to understand. People were reminded at every meeting how they could raise a concern if they had one.

Staff said that they felt supported and valued. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service that people received. This included audits, surveys and meetings with people and staff.

We saw that people looked happy and relaxed in the presence of staff. The registered manager told us that two of the people had lived in the home for over twenty years and the other people for over four.

We looked around the home which was clean, comfortably furnished and free from unpleasant odours. All the bedrooms were single occupancy and bedrooms were personalised with photographs, books, TV's and pictures.

We also spoke with two staff including the registered manager. We spent time observing how staff interacted and supported people. We saw staff treated people in a sensitive, respectful and professional manner and involved individuals in the running of the home.

We found that people were treated with dignity and respect. Their individuality was recognised and they were supported to make their own choices. Care plans were written with people and reflected their wishes. Information was provided to people in a format that they could understand.

We saw that people had comprehensive care plans and risk management plans that enabled staff to deliver the care that people needed. There was a good level of communication between the staff.

Staff had all received training in safeguarding and were aware of their roles and responsibilities. People we spoke with and their relatives informed us that they felt that they were provided with safe care and that staff were able to respond appropriately if a safeguarding issue arose.

The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and the correct checks were completed prior to staff commencing work.

We found that people, their relatives, staff and stakeholders were encouraged to express their opinions regarding the quality of the service. Audits of the service were also completed to enable the provider to monitor the service.

We found that improvements had been made in the maintenance of weight records in relation to a specified person who used the service.

We also found that the service had improved audit and assurance systems in relation to cleanliness an that the service was clean and hygienic.

Records we saw showed that health and safety audits had been improved with a new interim audit having been introduced in relation to a specific risk. This reduced the risk of falls or trips to people who used the service, visitors and staff.

Records maintained by CQC showed that, since our inspection of 6 December 2011, a person had applied and had been approved to become the registered manager at the service.