Archived: Queens Road Care Home

Updated 5 October 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 31 August 2017 and was unannounced.

The inspection was undertaken by one adult social care inspector. Prior to the inspection we looked at all information available to us, including the Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that the provider completes to demonstrate how they are meeting regulations and any improvements they plan to make.

As part of our inspection we reviewed the support plans of three people living in the home. We spoke with two people who used the service and four members of staff. This included the registered manager, senior support worker and support staff. We spoke with two healthcare professionals. We also reviewed other records relating to the running of the home such as quality monitoring documents, complaints and medicines records.

Updated 5 October 2017

The inspection took place on 31 August 2017. This was an unannounced inspection. Our last comprehensive inspection took place in July 2016. No breaches of regulation were found at this time, however the service was rated as requires improvement.

The service provides care and accommodation for up to seven people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in place at the service. 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.

People’s rights were mostly protected in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), however we did find occasions where the best interests decision making process had not been followed as it should. We also saw that for some decisions, staff were unable to find records of decisions that they said they had made using the MCA. This was an area of the service that required improvement.

Since our last inspection, the registered manager had made improvements to the outside environment; however further work was required to make sure it was fully suited to the needs of people in the home. The registered manager told us they had addressed this with the organisation.

We found that people received good care at the home and their needs were met by staff who were well trained and supported. Staff told us they had received the training they needed to meet people’s complex health needs. Staff confirmed they received regular supervision as an opportunity to discuss their performance and development needs.

Staff supported people in a kind and caring manner and were respectful in their communication. Staff used visual prompts to help people make choices. People were involved in giving their views and opinions about how the service should develop.

People using the service were safe because there were sufficient staff on duty to meet their needs. Staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and were confident about reporting any concerns.

The service was responsive to people’s needs. People had clear support plans in place to describe how people should be supported. These were person centred in nature. Staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and there was a keyworker system in place. This provided opportunity for people to build strong relationships with staff.

There was a system in place to respond to complaints. Any learning points from complaints were addressed with staff.

The home was well led. Staff were positive about the support they received and told us communication was good. Team meetings and shift handovers took place as a means of ensuring staff were aware of important information and developments in the service.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided. In the last 18 months, the provider had recognised that improvements to the service were required and an action plan had been devised. We saw that progress with the action plan was being made.