Archived: Livability Flourish Centre

Updated 20 November 2018

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.

This inspection site visit took place on 23 October 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. It continued on 24 October 2018 with two inspectors.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included notifications the home had sent us. A notification is the means by which providers tell us important information that affects the running of the service and the care people receive.

We used the 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 spoke with six people who used the service and one relative. We spoke to the registered manager, occupational therapist, seven staff and two health and social care professionals.

We reviewed two people’s care files, two medicine administration records, policies, risk assessments, health and safety records, consent to care and quality audits. We looked at three staff files, the recruitment process, complaints, training and supervision records.

We walked around the building and observed care practice and interactions between staff and people who were using the service. All the people using the service could tell us about their experiences.

Updated 20 November 2018

The inspection took place on 23 and 24 October 2018 and was unannounced.

People using Livability Spinal Injury Centre 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.

The service is registered to accommodate 13 people and specialises in providing care, treatment and rehabilitation for people living with spinal cord injuries. People used the service on a short-term basis and transferred from a local hospital. The service remained in daily contact with the hospital regarding people’s care and support. The service was split over two floors with the first floor accessible by stairs or a lift. There was a large open plan dining area which led out onto a patio. All outside areas were accessible. There were four people using the service at time of inspection. We spoke with six people in total as two people left the service and two people came in during our time there.

People were protected from avoidable harm as staff received training and understood how to recognise signs of abuse and the who to report this to both internally and externally if abuse was suspected.

Staffing levels were adequate to provide safe care and recruitment checks had ensured they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Registered nurses had the necessary permissions to practice.

Risk assessments were individual and detailed which meant that staff understood safe practices which helped keep people safe.

Medicines were administered and managed safely by trained and competent staff. Medication stock checks took place together with regular audits to ensure safety with medicines.

People knew their responsibilities about the prevention and control of infections within the service. Staff had received training and there was protective equipment readily available.

People had been involved in assessments of care and support needs and had their choices and wishes respected. The service worked well and in partnership with hospital professionals.

People were involved in what they had to eat and drink and were encouraged to do this independently. People were happy with the quality, variety and quantity of the food.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The registered manager actively sought to work in partnership with other organisations to improve outcomes for people using the service.

Care and support was provided by staff who had received an induction and continual learning that enabled them to carry out their role effectively including specific training in spinal cord injuries. Staff felt supported by the management of the service and were confident in their work.

People, their relatives and professionals described the staff as kind and caring. A professional told us, “Staff encourage people to express their needs and wishes”.

People had their dignity and privacy respected and promoting independence was a focus of the service through rehabilitation.

People had their care needs met by staff who were knowledgeable about their individual needs and how they communicated. Each person had a spinal injury passport which gave information about their specific needs.

The service had a complaints procedure and people were aware of it. People knew how to make a complaint. The service actively encouraged feedback from people and this was used in making changes and improvements.

A variety of activities were available and people could decide what they wanted to do. The service actively encouraged people to do things for themselves as they would do in their own home. People had access to rehabilitation, therapies and psychological support.

Relatives and professionals had confidence in the service. The home had an open, honest and positive culture that encouraged the involvement of everyone. A professional told us, “There is a will to change and do good for people”.

Leadership was visible within the home. Staff spoke positively about the management team and felt supported. The registered manager actively kept themselves updated.

There were effective quality assurance and auditing processes in place and they contributed to service improvements. Action plans were carried out and those responsible kept things up to date.

The service understood their legal responsibilities for reporting and sharing information with other organisations.