16 Crompton Street

Updated 29 March 2019

The inspection:

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

Inspection team:

The inspection was carried out by two Adult Social Care inspectors.

Service and service type:

16 Crompton Street is a Care Home. People in care home People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing and personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at on this inspection. The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

The inspection was unannounced.

What we did:

Prior to this inspection we looked at the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is the information that we request from a provider that helps inform what we will look at during an inspection. We also reviewed statutory notifications that had been received from and about the service and contacted the local authority for feedback. We used this information to populate our planning tool. This helps us to plan how the inspection needs to be carried out.

During the inspection we looked at three people’s care records, documentation relating to health and safety, two staff recruitment records, training and records of accidents, incidents and complaints. We also reviewed audits completed by the service and spoke to four people who used the service as well as five staff including the registered manager.

At the time of the inspection there was periodic testing of the electrical system being carried out at the home. This meant some electronically held information was not available on the day. The manager sent us the information we needed to form our judgement the following day.

Updated 29 March 2019

About the service:

16 Crompton Street is a care home providing support to 6 people at the time of inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

Everyone who lived at the home told us they felt safe. Medication was stored securely and administered by staff who were training to do so. There were recent checks that had taken place on the environment, and contractual checks to ensure the home was safe to live in. There was enough staff on duty to be able to support people safely. Staff were recruited and selected safely and recruitment checks were in place before staff started work. Staff were able to explain the course of action they would take if they felt anyone was being harmed or abused. Infection control procedures were robust, and there was information available for the use of COSHH products. The registered manager had identified their approach to incidents and accidents would benefit from being more detailed, they were in the process of changing this.

The registered manager and the staff were working in accordance to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where people’s liberty was being restricted, we saw the reasons for this had been clearly recorded. There were some instances were consent was not clearly recorded in people’s support plans, however when we spoke with people, they said their support plans had been discussed with them. People were supported to make themselves meals and snacks. People planned their menus and were supported by staff to partake in the cooking. We saw how consideration was given to people’s special dietary needs. The registered manager and the staff team worked with external organisations to ensure people had accessed health services when they needed to.

Everyone commented on the caring nature of the staff. Staff spoke positively and respectfully about the people they supported. There were polices in place which described the importance of diversity and inclusion and support plans evidenced that people’s needs and choices were recognised and supported.

There was information recorded in support plans with regards to people’s likes, dislikes and routines. Staff knew people well, and people told us they were getting support which was right for them. There was a complaints process in place. We saw there were no formal complaints recorded, and any complaints made were not escalated by the people who made them. The registered manager was in the process of establishing a way to record these as ‘niggles’ rather than complaints. There was no one accessing an end of life pathway at the home, however, staff had knowledge in their area.

There was a registered manager during this inspection. The registered manager was knowledgeable regarding their role and had reported any notifiable incidents to CQC in line with their regulatory responsibilities. There was a process in place to audit service provision, we saw that some audits had identified the need for some improvement to made to the communal areas. The registered manager had escalated the findings of these audits as required.

Rating at last inspection: The previous report was published 9 November 2016. The home has a rated of Requires Improvement in well led and Good in all the other key questions. The overall rating at the last inspection was Good.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating of the last inspection. The rating for this service is good.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.