Archived: 66 Stirling Road

At our last inspection 9 June 2014, we identified that the provider was not keeping us informed of incidents that they were required to inform us of. During this inspection we saw that the provider had rectified this and was now complying with the regulations.

A registered manager was 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.

66 Stirling Road provides accommodation and crisis care for up to six adults with mental health conditions. People using the service continue to be supported by community mental health teams.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service people received. However, improvements were needed to ensure a consistently well-led service.

Procedures were in place to reduce the risk of harm to people and staff knew how to support people to keep safe.

Risks to people’s care were managed, with discussions and agreement from people using the service.

Sufficient staff were employed and suitably recruited to provide care and support to people and ensure their needs were met.

People received their medicines as prescribed and safe systems were in place to manage people’s medicines. Procedures were in place for foreseeable emergencies and staff knew the procedures. The environment and equipment used for people’s care were safely maintained. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People received a service from staff that were supervised , although staff training was not up to date, the provider had plans in place to rectify this.

People had control over what they ate and drank, with support from staff if necessary. People had access to mental health professionals and were supported to maintain their physical heath.

Staff supported people in a caring way and respected people’s privacy and dignity. People were free to pursue their individual social activities, with family and friends as they wished.

Most people knew how to raise concerns if they needed to and systems were in place to investigate and respond to any concerns raised.

As part of this inspection we spoke with the three people who used the service, the manager in charge of the home, and two support workers. We contacted someone from the community mental health services to ask for their views on the quality of the service. At the time of writing this report we had not received any feedback.

We also reviewed records relating to the management of the home which included, a care plan, daily care records, accident /incident records, complaints records, audits, staff records and training records.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

All of the people spoken with told us that they had no concerns about the support they received. One person told us, 'The people are really nice and they look after me well.'

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and the staff team learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people that currently used the service and all the people spoken with said there were enough staff to support them.

People's needs were assessed and risks associated with providing the service were identified and managed to ensure that people received support in a safe way.

Systems were in place to monitor the safety of the premises to ensure that people lived in a safe home.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care services. We were told by the person in charge during our inspection that people using this service would not be subjected to a depravation of liberty, because they did not require continuous supervision. People that stayed at this service would have the capacity to make decisions for themselves.

Is the service effective?

All of the people spoken with told us that they were receiving the support that they needed.

Care plans that we saw were devised with people that used the service, so that support could be provided to meet people's needs.

All the people spoken with told us that they received the support they needed with their medication to help in keeping them well.

Is the service caring?

Everyone that we spoke with said they thought the staff were caring towards them. One person told us, 'They don't shout and they look after me.'

People were supported to maintain their independence, and received support when needed. One person told us, 'It's a nice home, all the staff are nice and I have a lot of freedom.'

Is the service responsive?

All the people that we spoke with told us that they had no complaints about the care provided. There was a system in place to respond to people's complaints.

The service responds to people who were in need of short term support to maintain their well-being and independence. People that we spoke with told us that they were enabled by the staff to maintain their independence.

Systems were in place to ensure that staff were able to communicate with people whose first language was not English. This ensured that the service was able to respond to people with different linguistic needs.

Is the service well led?

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provision. All the people that we spoke with knew how to raise a complaint should they need to. All the people that we spoke with said they were happy with the standard of support they received from the service.

There was currently no one registered to manage the home and the provider had not kept us informed about the arrangements for managing the home.

We found that improvement was needed to meet the requirements of the law to ensure that the service was well led.

People we spoke with had mixed views about the service they received. One person told us, 'I haven't found it that beneficial' while another person said 'The support has been fantastic.' The health professional we spoke with was positive and described the service as, 'One of the better respite services.'

Our previous inspection in June 2012 highlighted areas of concern across a number of outcomes and the service did not have a manager. Although there had been a general improvement in the delivery of the service we still had some concerns in relation to the management of medicines, the suitability of the premises, the provision of staff support and quality monitoring processes.

Since our previous inspection a manager has been appointed to the home but is not currently registered with the Care Quality Commission. The provider and manager are aware of the need for this person to formally apply to become a registered manager in accordance with the relevant legislation.