Archived: Leftwich Community Support Centre

We visited this service on 21st April 2015 and the inspection was unannounced.

The last inspection was carried out in November 2014 and we found that there were breaches in the regulations that related to consent and meeting the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); assessment of people’s needs; medication administration; and quality assurance. These included breaches associated with the care and welfare of people who used the service.

Leftwich Community Support Centre provides accommodation for up to 31 people who require a respite or short stay service. A passenger lift and staircases provide access to all levels.

At the time of our visit there were 14 people staying at the service.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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. At the time of this inspection the registered manager was not in day to day control of the service. An interim manager was in place and had worked at the service for four weeks.

At the last inspection in November 2014 we asked the registered provider to take action to make improvements with the administration and management of medicines, the lack of staff training and knowledge with regard to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); the care and welfare of people who use the service and risk assessments and with assessing and monitoring the quality of service. We received an action plan from the registered provider and they stated they would meet the relevant legal requirements by 31st March 2015. We found on this inspection that the action has been completed and the necessary improvements made.

People told us that they were happy staying at the service and they felt that the staff understood their care needs. People commented "The staff are lovely” and “There is always staff around here.”

We found that people, where possible were involved in decisions about their care and support. We saw that the staff team understood people’s care and support needs, and the staff we observed were kind and respectful towards people.

We found the service was clean, hygienic and well maintained in all areas seen.

We looked at the care records of three people who were staying at the service. We found there was basic information about the support people required and that it was written in a way that recognised people’s needs. We noted that administration and records of medication had improved.

We found that the registered provider had systems in place to ensure that people were protected from the risk of potential harm or abuse. We saw the registered provider had policies and procedures in place to guide staff in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), safeguarding people and staff recruitment. Policies and procedures related to safeguarding adults from abuse were available to the staff team. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and during discussions staff said they would report any suspected allegations of abuse to the person in charge. This meant that staff had documents available to them to help them understand the risk of potential harm or abuse of people who lived at the service.

We looked at the recruitment practices and saw that two of the four files seen did not have pre-employment checks in place. One person’s references were also not in place. Following the inspection visit we were notified by the registered provider that all pre-employment checks were in place but had not been placed in staff files. This has since been rectified. This meant that the people who were staying at the service could be confident that they were supported by suitable staff.

We looked at staff training however, we found it difficult to see what training staff had undertaken because training records were not available for some staff. Following the visit the manager provided details of staff training. This showed that staff had undertaken a wide range of training. We saw that staff supervision had started to be undertaken and that staff were involved in regular meetings.

We looked at staffing levels at the service. We saw that the staffing levels were good with plenty of staff available to meet the needs of people who used the service.

The service did not employ an activities coordinator and no planned activities were available to people. People confirmed there were no activities available apart from watching the TV and showed a desire for activities to be available to them. The manager said that they were looking into providing an activities coordinator and planned activities for people who were staying at the service.

We saw that the service had started to develop quality assurance systems. However, at the time of this visit these had not yet been fully completed, however, audits on medication had taken place and improvements were evident. Questionnaires were given to people when they left their short stay. We saw that people were very satisfied with the service and said staff were caring and very friendly.

People told us the food was good and that they enjoyed the meals.