Archived: Mencap Respite Service Liverpool

Updated 4 January 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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.

This inspection took place on 11 and 13 December 2018 and was unannounced.

The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included the statutory notifications sent to us by the registered provider about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also contacted the commissioners of the service to gather their views.

We used all of this information to plan how the inspection should be conducted.

As this is a ‘respite’ service, there were not always people living at it. On the days of our visit, nobody was staying. However, we spoke with one person who had used the service and another person wrote us a letter to let us know about their experience whilst they were there. We spoke with the relatives of six of the people who regularly used the service. Relatives shared with us their own thoughts, as well as how their loved ones described the service in their own words.

During the inspection we spoke with three out of the eight regular support workers, the service manager and the registered manager.

We looked at the care files of seven people receiving support from the service. We sampled two staff recruitment files, checked communications, records and charts relating to people’s care, as well as medicine administration records and audits. We also looked at the service’s incident and accident forms, safeguarding records, regular safety and maintenance checks, quality assurance processes, meeting minutes, as well as training and supervision information.

Updated 4 January 2019

This inspection took place on 11 and 13 December 2018. The first day of inspection was unannounced.

This was our first inspection of the service under its new registration.

Mencap Respite Service Liverpool is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Mencap Respite Service Liverpool is situated in a residential area of Belle Vale in Liverpool, with nearby shops and public transport. The service is based in a terrace of houses and consists of separate bedrooms and shared bathrooms over two floors. The service provides temporary accommodation for up to five people at the same time. People come and stay for short periods of time, ranging from a few days to several weeks.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service, particularly those staying for longer periods of time, were supported to live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People’s needs within the service varied and usually impacted upon the length of time that they were at the service. The staff team showed us good examples of how they adapted their support to people based on individual needs.

There was a service manager in post and a registered manager oversaw the service. 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.

When we inspected, staff, people using the service and their relatives were enthusiastic about sharing with us how highly they thought of the service. It was clear from our conversations that the service manager and their team were passionate about creating a caring, person-centred service that involved people and their relatives.

We found that there were some areas in which the service needed to improve, which mainly related to the safety of the service. In other aspects, we found and heard of very good examples of the way in which the service cared for and supported people and their relatives.

The service’s management and storage of medicines, particularly controlled drugs, needed to be improved , to ensure people and their medicines were kept safe.

We made a recommendation regarding this.

People had risk assessments and care plans in place to guide staff. We found that at times information about people’s risks and how the service had learned from incidents needed to be clearer.

We discussed with managers how some service safety aspects may benefit from review , such as the use of window restrictors.

Staff were aware of safeguarding responsibilities and had confidence in managers to address any concerns. Managers recorded and investigated concerns appropriately.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and they had been recruited appropriately.

The service was clean and bright and all relatives commented on this positively.

The service was working with the local authority to review their practice of following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We saw good examples of how people’s rights regarding decision-making were supported.

Staff felt well supported. Staff had access to regular training and supervision. We considered with managers that some further specialist training would be useful.

The service was adaptable to people’s needs. We considered with managers how some specialist considerations may help to give a more rounded assessment of people’s requirements.

The service showed us good examples of meeting people’s different dietary needs, including those based on people’s cultural backgrounds.

People had access to health professionals if they needed them while they stayed at the service.

Staff treated people with dignity, respect and kindness. People and relatives spoke highly of the service and its team.

We heard very good examples of how the service had supported people to develop skills, to promote their independence and control over their lives.

The service involved people and their relatives in the planning of care. Information and support were person-centred. Plans were reviewed before each time an individual came to stay, to promote up-to-date knowledge.

Activities for people varied, but we heard that people and relatives valued the way in which the service helped people to connect with others.

The service listened to and involved people and their relatives in different ways, to support ongoing development.

We discussed a few record-keeping issues with managers, which needed to be improved to reflect the person-centred care of the service.

The service and provider used a variety of checks and audits to help improve the service. The service listened to and acted on external feedback.

We observed an enthusiastic team of staff who were passionate about the care they provided. Team meetings took place regularly and staff used these to make improvements.

There was an inclusive culture at the service that welcomed and celebrated people’s uniqueness. Through events and regular communication, the service was maintaining a good relationship with people and relatives and developing community links.

Managers had submitted statutory notifications to CQC in line with their legal obligations.