Mandalay

We found the following examples of good practice:

Staff supported people in a personalised manner to remain safe, adapting their approach in line with each person’s needs.

The provider had ensured that when usual staff were not available, people received support from consistent staff. The new temporary staff had got to know people well, which had helped minimise distress from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The property was easy to clean and this minimised the risk of infection. The layout of the building meant people could be easily isolated, with each person having a dedicated area for their personal use.

At our last inspection, we rated the service good. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of good. Although we found there was some room for improvement, there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. As a result, this inspection report is written in a shorter format.

At this inspection, we found the overall rating for the service remained good.

There had been a period of disruption since our last inspection, after the long-standing manager had left the service. However, a new experienced manager had been appointed who demonstrated excellent skills and in the few months they had been at the service, morale had improved and there was a more open, dynamic culture. Improved audits and action plans were in place, which were driving improvements in the service.

Staff were caring and compassionate and treated people as individuals. However, we found staff did not always support people to develop their skills and lead fulfilling lives. Care plans were written in a person centred way but were not easily accessible to people, in line with best practice. We made a recommendation around improving developing information in line with people’s individual communication needs. The provider had not always gathered feedback from people and families. We therefore rated responsive as requires improvement.

There were enough safely recruited staff to meet people’s needs. Risk was well managed at the service and people were protected from abuse. People received support to take their medicines, as prescribed. There were measures to reduce the risk of infection.

There was scope to enhance the decoration and design of the property and gardens, in line with best practice principles. We have made a recommendation about this.

Although staff had not supported people to develop aspirations for the futures, they were skilled at enabling people to make choices about their day-to-day lives. The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how a provider applies the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way. Management and staff met their responsibility under the MCA. Where people were being restricted of their freedom, the manager had taken the necessary actions to ensure decisions were made in their best interest.

Staff knew peoples’ needs well and had the necessary skills to support them. Training had improved and staff felt well supported. Staff supported people to keep healthy and access outside professionals when required. People could choose what they ate and drank, in line with their preferences.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection took place on 24 and 27 June 2016. Our first visit was unannounced and our second visit was announced.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on June 2015 and rated the service as good. After that inspection we received concerns in relation to the quality of the care being provided to people at the service. As a result we undertook a focused inspection to look into those concerns. This report only covers our findings in relation to this topic. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link -for Mandalay on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Mandalay is a care service that provides accommodation and care to a maximum of six people who have a learning disability and may have complex needs. On the day of the inspection there were four people residing at the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

We did not find there was any foundation to the concerns which had been raised with us. We found a service where people were happy and well cared for by a committed staff team and manager. The service was well led and the provider had left no stone unturned to investigate the concerns which had been raised.

People were supported to lead full lives and take part in meaningful activities of their choice. They developed positive relationships with people and staff at the service and were encouraged to keep in contact with family and friends outside the service. There were comprehensive and personalised plans in place which outlined people’s needs and preferences. People and their families knew how to complain and who to speak to if they had any concerns.

There was an open, inclusive culture at the service. People and staff felt supported by the manager. The manager was aware of what was happening at the service and addressed any concerns over poor practice. The manager and the provider carried out comprehensive checks to assure themselves that people were receiving a good service and were safe.