Archived: Old Park Road Respite Unit

People’s experience of using this service:

¿People were happy in the company of staff and were able to communicate with them to make their needs understood. Activities were on offer to keep people occupied both on a group and individual basis. Trips out were also organised in line with people’s preferences.

¿Medicines were being administered safely and people’s dietary needs were met.

¿Staff were kind and caring and there were sufficient numbers to keep people safe and to meet their care needs. Staff were receiving appropriate training which was good and relevant to their role. Staff were supported by the registered manager and were receiving regular formal supervision where they could discuss their on-going development needs.

¿Care plans were up to date and detailed exactly what care and support people wanted and needed. Risk assessments were in place and showed what action had been taken to mitigate any risks which had been identified. Appropriate referrals were being made to the safeguarding team when this had been necessary.

¿There was a complaints procedure available which enabled people to raise any concerns or complaints about the care or support they received.

¿The registered manager provided staff with leadership and was described as being very approachable. Audits and checks continued to be used to drive improvements to the service people received.

¿People’s feedback was used to make changes to the service, for example, to the menus and activities.

¿The provider had recognised the building was not going to be suitable in the long term. All of the bedroom accommodation was on the first floor. This meant anyone wishing to use the service had to be able to climb a flight of stairs. The provider told us they will be moving this service to another of their homes, which has better facilities, later in the year.

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated Good (report published 6 September 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection to check this service remained Good.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

A registered manager was 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.

People and relatives we spoke with provided consistently positive feedback about the service. They said the friendly staff provided high quality care and support. We were told the home was well managed and communication between staff, people and relatives was very good.

People and relatives said people were safe in the service. Safeguarding procedures were in place and were followed to help keep people safe. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and clear plans of care put in place which were well understood by staff.

Medicines were safely managed with systems in place to ensure all medicines were given as prescribed and fully accounted for throughout people’s stay.

There were sufficient quantities of staff deployed to ensure people received safe and personalised care. Staffing levels were carefully considered dependent on the needs of people staying at the service.

New staff were checked to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. A system had recently been put in place to involve people who used the service in the recruitment of staff.

The premises was safely managed and well maintained having recently undergone refurbishment of a number of areas. There was a secure garden area where people could spend time.

People were provided with a variety of food based on their individual likes and preferences. People were well supported at mealtimes by attentive staff.

The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were given choices and involved in decision making as much as possible.

People’s healthcare needs were assessed by the service and plans of care put in place which were well understood by staff. Health and social care professionals we spoke with praised the service and said it provided high quality care.

Staff received a range of training, support and supervision. We saw this was largely up-to-date. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people and topics we asked them about.

People received kind and compassionate care from staff who knew them, their likes, dislikes and personal preferences. Where appropriate people were supported to develop or maintain their independence.

People’s needs were assessed and clear and person centred plans of care put in place. Staff understood these plans of care which gave us assurance they were consistently followed. The service took the time to understand people’s cultural needs and took steps to ensure they were met.

People and relatives reported a high level of satisfaction with the service and said they had no need to complain. Where complaints had been received, these had been treated seriously and responded to appropriately.

People were assisted to participate in a range of activities based on their individual preferences. This included activities within the house each evening and trips out into the local community.

People and relatives told us the service was well managed and the registered manager was friendly, approachable and effective in addressing any issues. Staff told us morale was good and they felt well supported. We observed a friendly and inclusive atmosphere within the home.

A number of audits were carried out and most of these were effective in identifying and addressing issues in a timely way. However in one instance, a comprehensive quality audit had been carried out earlier in 2016, but had not been provided to the registered manager in a timely way.

We spoke with two relatives of people who used the service. One relative said "Staff are lovely." Another relative said 'The manager is fabulous.'

We found people were asked about their wishes and were involved in the planning of their care and activities.

We found people were well cared for and their care and welfare needs were properly assessed.

We found the building had a homely environment and was maintained to a satisfactory standard.

We found the provider had a robust system in place to assess the quality of its service to drive improvement.