Archived: Roper Street

Updated 24 December 2015

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 201

This inspection took place on Saturday 10th October 2015 and was announced.

The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in on a Saturday.

The inspection was carried out by the lead adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, such as notifications we had received from the registered provider. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

We also received a Provider Information Review for the service. We had sent out questionnaires to people who used the service and to visiting professionals. We had an almost 100% return and satisfaction levels were high.

We also asked the local social work team and local health care providers for information about the service. We had contact with staff from health and the local authority who purchased care on behalf of people. We planned the inspection using this information.

We met with three of the four people who were in receipt of personal care. We spoke with them informally about the experiences of the support they received.

We read three of the four care files for these people and we looked at the records relating to medication support given to them. We also checked on the medicines kept on their behalf. We read care and recovery plans. We also looked at the records of money kept for people.

We spoke with the registered manager, the project manager and to two support workers. We looked at a recruitment file and four staff personnel files and five training and development files. These included induction, training, supervision and appraisal records. We also looked at some of the policies and procedures around staffing. We also received copies of staff rosters.

We looked at a range of records related to quality monitoring. We saw risk assessments and risk management plans for some aspects of the service.

Updated 24 December 2015

This was an announced inspection that took place on Saturday 10th October 2015.

Roper Street is part of the Croftlands Trust which provides care homes and personal care support throughout Cumbria. This service provides support to people in both Copeland and Allerdale. Most of the support provided is to people who have enduring mental health problems. Some people live in tenancies near to the office and have support from staff on an on-going basis. Other people who use the service have less intensive support in their own homes.

At this visit only four people were in receipt of personal care support but other people had housing, social and psychological support. We only looked at the support provided to people in receipt of personal care.

The home had a registered manager. 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.

Staff understood how to protect vulnerable people from harm and abuse. Staff were trained in this and in matters of equality and diversity. Staff told us that they could report any issues in confidence to the registered manager or the provider.

The service had a suitable emergency plan in place that had been recently updated. Accidents and incidents were managed appropriately.

We judged that staffing levels were appropriate to provide people with suitable levels of care and support.

Recruitment was managed appropriately. New team members had suitable background checks before they started to work in the service.

The organisation had a disciplinary process which was used when there were any issues of poor practice.

The staff in the project understood how to manage infection control and told us they had access to equipment and cleaning materials when necessary.

Medicines management in the service needed some improvement. The registered manager was aware of some issues and was dealing with gaps in the management processes.

This meant that the service was in breach of Regulation 12 (2) (g) because some elements of medicines management could have been unsafe for people in the service.

Staff received suitable training on all the issues that the organisation deemed to be necessary to keep people safe and well cared for. Staff told us they did e-learning and attended external training courses.

We saw evidence to show that staff received both formal and informal supervision. We also saw records of annual appraisals.

Staff showed a good understanding of mental health legislation. They received training that gave them knowledge of mental health issues.

The team did not use restraint in the service but had contingency plans to deal with any episodes of mental ill health. People were, where appropriate, asked for consent for all interventions. Staff understood that they should always use the least restrictive interventions where people needed support.

Staff helped some people to shop and make meals. They encouraged people to eat healthily.

The office was in a secure building and there was accommodation for staff who slept-in overnight. The service had suitable telephone and IT systems.

We saw caring and sensitive interactions between staff and people who used the service. Staff were patient and showed a good understanding of the distress that mental ill health might cause.

People had ready access to advocacy. Staff were careful to ensure people had privacy and confidentiality maintained. Independence was promoted in all the support given.

Assessment and care planning were of a good standard. People told us that they were involved in all aspects of their recovery planning as well as their day-to-day needs.

People were encouraged to go out and to participate in community activities.

There had been no formal complaints or concerns. The organisation had suitable policies and procedures about this.

The service had a suitably qualified and experienced registered manager. The organisation was in the process of reviewing matters of governance in all their services. The proposed changes would help rationalise the management structure and allow the services to work more effectively.

This service had good, routine quality monitoring systems in place. Records were of a good standard.

We had evidence to show that the team worked well with local GPs and members of the mental health teams in the area.

You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full report.