Background to this inspection
Updated
7 December 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.
The inspection visit took place on 27 October 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team included an inspector and an expert by experience (ExE). An ExE is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Before the inspection visit, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed information that we held about the service to plan and inform our inspection. This included information that we had received from people who used the service and from other interested parties. We also reviewed statutory notifications. A statutory notification contains information relating to significant events that the provider must send to us. We contacted the local authority who has funding responsibility for some people living at the home and Healthwatch (the consumer champion for health and social care) to ask them for their feedback about the service.
During our inspection visit we spoke with two people who used the service. We also spoke with three relatives of people who used the service. We spoke with the registered manager, the quality administrator, a lead support worker and two support workers.
We looked at the care records of three people who used the service. We also looked at records in relation to people’s medicines, health and safety and documentation about the management of the service. These included policies and procedures, training records and quality checks that the registered manager had undertaken. We looked at four staff files to look at how the provider had recruited and supported staff members.
Updated
7 December 2016
We inspected the service on 27 October 2016 and the visit was unannounced.
RNIB The Stan Bell Centre is a specialist college service. It provides accommodation for people who require personal care and a domiciliary care service. At the time of our inspection there were six people who used the service.
At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in place. It is a requirement that the service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 and their relatives told us that they felt safe living at The Stan Bell Centre. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm and to remain safe. There were procedures in place to manage incidents and accidents.
Risks associated with people’s support had been assessed and reviewed. Where risks had been identified control measures were in place to protect people’s health and welfare.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. They were recruited following the provider’s procedures which made sure people were supported by staff with the right skills and attributes. Staff received appropriate support through an induction and regular supervision. There was training available for staff to provide and update them on safe ways of working.
People received their prescribed medicines from trained staff who were assessed for their competency with this task. Guidance was available to staff on the safe handling of people’s medicines. We found that not all medicines had been recorded correctly on people's medicine administration records. The registered manager changed this on the day of the inspection and sought further guidance from a health professional.
People were supported to follow a balanced diet. Guidance from health professionals in relation to eating and drinking was followed. We saw that people chose their own meals and were involved in making them.
People were supported to make their own decisions. Staff and the registered manager had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2015 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff told us that they sought people’s consent before they provided support. People were supported to maintain their health and well-being. This included having access to healthcare services such as to their GP.
People were involved in decisions about their support. They told us that staff treated them with dignity and respect. Staff showed kindness and compassion. We saw that people’s records were stored safely and staff discussed people’s support requirements in a confidential manner. People’s families could visit without undue restriction which ensured they maintained relationships that were important to them.
People were supported to develop skills to maintain their independence. People undertook activities that they were interested in. The support people received was responsive to their needs. Staff made changes as each person developed new skills. Support plans contained information about people, their likes, dislikes and preferences.
People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint. The complaints procedure was available, including in an easier to read format, so that people knew the procedure to follow should they want to make a complaint.
People and staff felt the service was well managed. The service was led by a registered manager who understood their responsibilities under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. Staff felt supported by the registered manager. They were knowledgeable about their responsibilities including how to report their concerns about the unsafe or inappropriate practice of their colleagues should they need to.
People and their relatives had opportunities to give feedback about the quality of the service. The registered manager told us that if improvements were suggested, they would take action.
Systems and processes were in place so that checks were carried out on the quality of the service that was delivered.