This inspection took place on 30 January and 03 February 2016. We let the provider know we were coming as we needed to be sure people would be in. The service was last inspected in September 2014 and it was meeting all the regulations in force at that time. 2 Conroy Close is a purpose built service. The service is registered to support people with a learning disability. It does not provide nursing care. There were 6 people living there at the time of this inspection.
The service had a registered manager who had been in post since 2012. 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.
Staff had been trained to recognise and respond to any safeguarding issues although for some staff this training had been over four years ago. Staff knowledge and understanding of safeguarding was good. The service acted appropriately in reporting such issues to the local safeguarding adults unit although they had not notified the Commission in relation to safeguarding concerns and absence of the manager. We will write to the provider about this. People told us they felt safe when their support workers were providing them with support.
Risks to people were assessed, and risk assessments gave sufficient information to ensure that people could be supported safely by staff. These were not always reviewed consistently. Some accidents and incidents were recorded but these had not been recorded consistently or analysed by the registered manager, to see if any lessons could be learned. Plans were in place to keep people safe in the event of an emergency.
There were a large amount of staff vacancies which resulted in daily use of agency staff, although regular and consistent staff from the agency were used. There were currently 200 hours per week vacancies that required recruiting too. Staff files showed that recruitment was professional and robust to ensure suitable applicants were employed.
Medicine administration was managed and carried out appropriately although not all staff had received recent training. Medicine storage was safe and appropriate.
Staff had received some training to enable them to meet people’s needs but this needed reviewing and updating as there were gaps in various areas. Staff were also observed by management carrying out tasks such as medicine administration and moving and handling and these checks were recorded. Staff had supervision and annual appraisal although this was not as frequent as the providers own policy seen during the inspection stated. Records of supervision did not always demonstrate two way conversations between staff and the registered manager. People told us they felt staff had the skills they needed.
People were asked to give their consent to their care. Where people were not able to give informed consent, their rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were monitored. Staff knowledge of mental capacity and deprivation of liberty was inconsistent.
People were supported with their nutritional needs and with their general health needs.
People and their families gave us positive feedback about the service and all were very happy with the care and support they received. People told us that staff were caring and knew them well. Relatives felt that their family members were cared for very well and were happy with all aspects of their care with the only issue raised being the staff vacancies and use of agency staff.
Care plans were clear and detailed, and reflected people’s preferences. They were extremely personalised and demonstrated the person and families input. Some reviews and updates needed to be recorded more clearly within the documentation being used.
The environment was in good condition with only some minor repairs and redecoration required. Infection control was well managed and staff demonstrated an understanding of ways to minimise the risk of infection. However, we did find excessive hot water temperatures recorded for three taps, and a lack of action taken being clear in documentation. We could not find recent records of legionella testing in the house. We raised this with the registered manager during the inspection and they updated us that action was taken to address these issues two days after the inspection.
There was regular engagement with families for both individual input to the person’s support as well as development of the service. A residents, families and professionals day had been held in order to gain feedback on what the service did well and the improvements that were required.
The registered manager was open to improvements needed to the service. There were some systems in place to monitor the performance of the service but these were not being used in order to be effective or result in improvements across all areas of the service provided. People told us they felt they were listened to.
We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing and good governance.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.