Archived: Royal Mencap Society - 7 Lingdale Road

The home required a registered manager. 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. There was a registered manager in place who had been in post since December 2015.

We saw that some of the communal internal and eternal areas in the home looked tired, shabby and in some disrepair and would benefit from re-decoration. We noted that the manager was in the process of implementing improvements needed in the home and we saw an improvement in the systems that had been prioritised.

We found that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) 2009 legislation had been adhered to in the home. The manager told us of the people at the home who lacked capacity. We found however that the appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications had been submitted to the Local Authority in relation to people’s care.

The people living in the home were able to express themselves and were able to choose the way they spent their day. They were taken to activities outside the home and encouraged to keep family connections by visiting family where possible.

People had access to sufficient quantities of nutritious food and drink throughout the day and were given suitable menu choices at each mealtime, these options had been chosen by the people who lived at Royal Mencap Society, 7 Lingdale Road.

We found that staff were well trained and supported. They were able to demonstrate skill and competency in their knowledge about autism and the support people required. The people who lived at the home were clearly happy with the support that staff gave them and there was a good rapport between them.

We checked the medication cabinet which was stored in the main office. We saw that medication was given as directed and stored appropriately. We talked with staff who were able to demonstrate their knowledge of safeguarding and were able to tell us how to report abuse.

Each of the people’s bedrooms had been personalised by the people who lived in them and those who were able were able to lock their bedroom doors, choose who entered their rooms and go in and out of the front door freely.

Care records, risk assessments, staff records and other documents relating to the running of the home, were well-kept and up-to-date. Each person living at the home had a personalised care plan and risk assessment.

We found that recruitment practices were in place which included the completion of pre-employment checks prior to a new member of staff working at the service. Staff received regular training and supervision to enable them to work safely and effectively.

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is what we found

Is the service safe

People were cared for in an environment that was safe. The home was seen to be clean and hygienic. Equipment at the home was well maintained and serviced regularly. There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home and a member of the management team was always available on call in case of emergencies. People living in the home told us they felt safe.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the care and their needs were met. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of people's support needs and knew them well. One person told us. "The staff are great". Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

Is the service caring?

We spent time in all areas of the home where we observed staff to be kind and patient to the people who lived there and had a good rapport. Staff spoke fondly of the people living in the home.

Is the service responsive?

People had lived in the home for a while. Records confirmed people's preferences, interests, and aspirations, care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes. People had access to activities that were important to them and were supported to maintain relationships with their friends, relatives and the community in which they lived.

Is the service well led?

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. People told us if they were unhappy with anything staff would always listen. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They said the management team always consulted with them before implementing changes to the management of the home and their views were taken into consideration. One member of staff said "We work as a team so all of the people living here have a good quality of life; we provide good care and would not tolerate bad practice".

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.

All four service users we spoke to said staff were 'very nice'. We spoke to one service user who regularly goes out with an outreach support worker; he had been out for a meal and said he had 'a really good time'. We saw each service user had a diary of what they had done each day of the week which reflected their preferences.

We saw evidence of staff monitoring weights on a regular basis and were told they informed the GP of any weight loss. We saw evidence that supplements were given as prescribed by the GP.

We saw the provider had policies and procedures in place for safeguarding and emergency events. All staff were aware of where to locate them if need be. Staff were able to give us confident and correct examples of what they would do in an event of an emergency.

All the service users we spoke to said they had no concerns over the welfare of any of the other people living there. One told us she felt 'safe' there.

Although staff were able to locate the safeguarding policy, all the other policies were kept in a very disorganised and cluttered cupboard making it difficult to locate paperwork in an emergency.

We saw personal staff files were kept in an unlocked staff room. We also saw personal staff paper work was left around the staff room in view of other staff members who used this room. The provider failed to hold private staff information in a confidential/secure manner.

The six people who used the service had care plans and risk assessments and there was evidence they had been involved in their production. However there was an inconsistency in the type of information recorded and the level of detail documented.

We spoke to people who used the service about whether they considered the home to be a safe place to live. All said they felt safe at the service. Some comments made were:

'This is my home and I feel safe and happy here.' 'All the staff are lovely they are all nice to me and listen to me.'

Staff training records showed all staff had completed a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) relevant to their role. The support workers spoken with said the training provided was good and equipped them to appropriately support the people who used the service.

There were quality assurance and auditing systems in place at 7 Lingdale Road. Wirral Local Involvement Network (LINK) visited the service in October 2012 this was to gather the views and experiences of people who used the service. The report produced following the visit made positive comments about the support people received.