We are the regulator: Our job is to check whether hospitals, care homes and care services are meeting essential standards.

Transcription

1 Inspection Report We are the regulator: Our job is to check whether hospitals, care homes and care services are meeting essential standards. Reach Sistine Manor Sistine Manor, Stoke Green, Stoke Poges, SL2 4HN Tel: Date of Inspection: 05 September 2013 Date of Publication: October 2013 We inspected the following standards as part of a routine inspection. This is what we found: Respecting and involving people who use services Care and welfare of people who use services Safeguarding people who use services from abuse Supporting workers Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision Inspection Report Reach Sistine Manor October

2 Details about this location Registered Provider Registered Manager Overview of the service Type of service Regulated activity Reach Limited Ms. Sarah Davies Sistine Manor offers residential care and support to up to 19 adults with learning disabilities. Care home service without nursing Accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care Inspection Report Reach Sistine Manor October

3 Contents When you read this report, you may find it useful to read the sections towards the back called 'About CQC inspections' and 'How we define our judgements'. Summary of this inspection: Page Why we carried out this inspection 4 How we carried out this inspection 4 What people told us and what we found 4 More information about the provider 5 Our judgements for each standard inspected: Respecting and involving people who use services 6 Care and welfare of people who use services 8 Safeguarding people who use services from abuse 9 Supporting workers 11 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision 12 About CQC Inspections 13 How we define our judgements 14 Glossary of terms we use in this report 16 Contact us 18 Inspection Report Reach Sistine Manor October

4 Summary of this inspection Why we carried out this inspection This was a routine inspection to check that essential standards of quality and safety referred to on the front page were being met. We sometimes describe this as a scheduled inspection. This was an unannounced inspection. How we carried out this inspection We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 5 September 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff. What people told us and what we found The people we met were happy and relaxed and told us they liked living at the home and that they felt they were looked after well. These people also told us they regularly went out on shopping trips, to the cinema and attended a variety of local social clubs. We looked at a range of people's weekly activity plans and we noted that these plans promoted a broad range of weekday, evenings and weekend activities. We spoke with one person who told us, "I am going to go to bingo tonight; I like it, and I go every week." We spoke with two staff who told us they supported people be as independent as possible and to work towards and achieve personal activity or social goals. We looked at four care files that demonstrated the personalised approach in place to plan to support the staff's comments. In one care pan we looked at a person who used the service could be seen pictured at the home, out and about on excursions and holidays and with friends and relatives. The staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of the different types of abuse and were able to provide good insight into the organisations safeguarding policies and that of the Local Authorities reporting processes. We observed that the managers operated a model of good practice by offering staff regular supervision and access to a framework of training and support that enabled them to provide a high quality of care. The staff we spoke with told us that the 'key worker' system was an effective model of practice. These people told us that it enabled them to provide the appropriate levels of support needed by people who used the service so that they were able to make independent choices and decisions around the way they received their care. You can see our judgements on the front page of this report. Inspection Report Reach Sistine Manor October

5 More information about the provider Please see our website for more information, including our most recent judgements against the essential standards. You can contact us using the telephone number on the back of the report if you have additional questions. There is a glossary at the back of this report which has definitions for words and phrases we use in the report. Inspection Report Reach Sistine Manor October

6 Our judgements for each standard inspected Respecting and involving people who use services People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. People's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. Reasons for our judgement The people who used the service had complex support needs and were not all able to communicate using words. However they were able to communicate with us and share their experiences with the support of staff and using visual aids or prompts. We communicated with three people who used the service who told us they liked living at the home and felt that they were well cared for. We looked at a range of person centred plans that had been developed in an easy to read format using diagrams and pictures to tell a story of the person's life and to convey the people, objects or events that were important to them. Example stories included photos and pictures relating to excursions, holidays, personal achievements and also photographs of family and friends. The interactions we observed between people who used the service and the staff were positive and respectful and two care staff who told us that they supported people's independence by helping them to make informed choices about they way in which they received their care and the activities they liked to participate in. These people told us how they respect people as individuals and activity sought agreement and feedback on the levels of personalised support people received. The care plans we looked supported this statement, they clearly identified which weekly activities people wanted to participate in and what level of support individuals required, evidencing that a person centred approach was in place and working effectively. One weekly activity file we looked at contained pictorial evidence for one person who was participating in an arts project. The file documented that planned weekly activity had been supported by staff using a pre-agreed set of activity/outcome objectives linked to individual learning outcomes for the person who used the service. We saw people who used the service were placed at the centre of support offered to them by participating in discussions with staff and that their contribution was encouraged and received positively. We looked at a range of agenda's and minutes from recent residents meetings which showed clear evidence of participation and contributions from people who Inspection Report Reach Sistine Manor October

7 used the service. This evidenced that people who used the service were encouraged to participate, were valued and treated with respect. Inspection Report Reach Sistine Manor October

8 Care and welfare of people who use services People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Reasons for our judgement We were told by the manager that staffing levels were high to reflect the complex support needs of the people who used the service. We spoke with two care staff who told us they had been given support to access the appropriate training needed to ensure that's they were able to support the individual health and care needs of people who used the service. These staff told us that the support people needed was delivered in accordance with people's individual care plans to ensure the safety and welfare of each person who used the service. This showed us that people's welfare and safety were protected because adequate numbers of staff were available to deliver support in line with individual needs. We looked at the person centred plans of four people who used the service. Each plan included detailed information covering personalised care needs and general welfare requirements. Evidence in the plans clearly identified people's individual preferences around how they preferred to receive their care combined with personal heath and safeguarding action plans. We were able to see that people's care plans had been regularly reviewed and any changes and alterations were signed off and dated by staff appropriately. We noted the inclusion of health professionals contact details and related general health information such as appointment schedules for GPs, dentists and opticians. We observed people receiving safe and effective care that was based on these detailed person centred plans and were able to look at the risk assessments compiled by staff to ensure each plan met individual needs. We were shown examples of the detailed behaviour support guidance contained within each care plan. Staff told us this guidance was personalised for each person who used the service and was referred to by staff to ensure they were up-to-date with changes in behaviour either as a result of medical conditions or medication. We were told staff used the guides as an aid to support people's safety and welfare by helping to provide a high quality level of care. We were able to observe that this process enabled staff to support people's health and safety and wellbeing in an appropriate manner. Inspection Report Reach Sistine Manor October

9 Safeguarding people who use services from abuse People should be protected from abuse and staff should respect their human rights Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Reasons for our judgement All staff had received training in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. The staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of the different types of abuse and told us that they had regular opportunities to discuss any issues or concerns they may have in supervision, staff and team meetings. The staff we spoke to were able to verbally evidence knowledge of the processes in place to report concerns in line with the organisations current policy and the local authority reporting procedure. The manager told us that safeguarding was a mandatory agenda item in supervision and staff meetings and the companies training brief made safeguarding training mandatory. We were told the safeguarding training course covered scenarios to explore how staff should identify, report and follow up any incidents that they might encounter. We looked at two training files that contained information to evidence staff had attended this safeguarding training within the last six months and had been given essential information to support them to understand the different types of abuse and ways to support vulnerable adults. Four members of staff we talked to spoke about their understanding of the importance of being observant in their work, particularly with regards to caring for the most vulnerable people who used the service. All four staff confirmed that they had recently attended training covering safeguarding issues and felt confident to support people and be able to protect them from the possible risk of abuse. These staff were able to convey a good understanding of how to prevent abuse from happening. We looked at two staff files that included supervision records and notes to show safeguarding had been identified and discussed as a regular agenda item. We noted that each file contained the appropriate employer references and current Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) police checks and evidenced that the provider had taken steps to ensure people received a safe level of care. The documents we looked at evidenced the provider had taken steps to ensure people were supported by a vetted staff team who had appropriate knowledge and training on safeguarding vulnerable adults. We looked at four person centred care plans that included a copy of the organisational complaints procedure in an easy to read format that used signs and symbols. We also Inspection Report Reach Sistine Manor October

10 noted that this version of the complaints procedure was a regular item on the agenda at residents meetings. The care plans, minutes and our discussions with staff evidenced that the provider had ensured all staff had a good understanding of their personal duty towards safeguarding people from abuse, and that people who used the service had the opportunity to have those procedures explained in detail. Inspection Report Reach Sistine Manor October

11 Supporting workers Staff should be properly trained and supervised, and have the chance to develop and improve their skills Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. Reasons for our judgement We looked at the company's induction training programme and noted the Skills for Care common induction standards were included with the addition of a few revisions that were specific to the staff who worked for the organisation. The programme required staff to provide evidence of competencies against each learning outcome in the standard. In addition to the induction programme we saw evidence to show that all new staff had been allocated two learning days to enable them to get to know the people who used the service and familiarise themselves with the home working arrangements. We spoke with three care staff who told us the induction training they had received was of a high standard and had helped them to deliver a good quality of care. They also told us they received regular supervision and access to an on-going training programme. We spoke with the manager who told us they supported staff to access training on a regular basis and to develop the skills required to support the people who used the service effectively, and as a commitment to staff development encourage staff to obtain relevant national qualifications in health care. We looked at two personal files that contained certificates of completed induction programmes and evidence of other training activities as part of the service training matrix. We saw supervision records that included specific agenda's, discussions and reflections upon professional practice. These recordings logged agreed actions for future meetings and any identified training needs specific to support people who used the service. We looked at four personal files which contained certificates of completed induction programmes and evidence of other training activities to support specific individual need such as, 'smile for life', a course relating to maintaining and promoting good oral health. We looked at the providers training matrix for 2013 which identified a list of specific courses such as the above aimed at supporting staff to provide individualised care underpinned by good practice. Verbal feedback from staff and our observations of the staff on duty evidenced that the provider had adequate systems in place to ensure the quality of care delivered was underpinned by on-going and responsive training to help staff develop their skills. Inspection Report Reach Sistine Manor October

12 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others. Reasons for our judgement To ensure the home was compliant with national and organisational standards, the manager told us monitoring inspection visits were conducted every two months as part of the provider's standard quality assurance across all their provision. We were told this was one of the processes in place to ensure the home was supporting the people who used the service to a high standard with regards to a broad range of health and safety areas including; medication control, dietary requirements, food hygiene, catering quality, building environment, condition and maintenance. We were told the monitoring inspection visit was also used to review all the person centred plans that staff referred to as part of their daily care delivery. We looked at a number of the providers risk assessments used by staff to inform people's person centred plans, each of the plans we looked at included a clear set of processes targeted at managing individuals risks and included supporting information to help staff increase peoples independence. The examples we looked at had been updated and reviewed to reflect the changing care needs of people who used the service. The manager told us that a 'key worker system' was in place to support individuals to develop strong relationships with staff and to encourage a safer environment for people to feel supported to have discussions, raise suggestions and reach agreements on improvements to service delivery. We were able to see that people's views were sought on an informal and formal basis from the records of the monthly residents meetings where people had been encouraged and supported to share their views and raise any concerns. The manager told us that they had recently introduced a quality monitoring meeting that reviewed the 'key worker system' on a monthly basis. We looked at minutes from these monthly meeting that evidenced the provider had effective processes in place to manage risk and that quality was regularly monitored by activity seeking feedback from people who used the service. Inspection Report Reach Sistine Manor October

13 About CQC inspections We are the regulator of health and social care in England. All providers of regulated health and social care services have a legal responsibility to make sure they are meeting essential standards of quality and safety. These are the standards everyone should be able to expect when they receive care. The essential standards are described in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations We regulate against these standards, which we sometimes describe as "government standards". We carry out unannounced inspections of all care homes, acute hospitals and domiciliary care services in England at least once a year to judge whether or not the essential standards are being met. We carry out inspections of other services less often. All of our inspections are unannounced unless there is a good reason to let the provider know we are coming. There are 16 essential standards that relate most directly to the quality and safety of care and these are grouped into five key areas. When we inspect we could check all or part of any of the 16 standards at any time depending on the individual circumstances of the service. Because of this we often check different standards at different times. When we inspect, we always visit and we do things like observe how people are cared for, and we talk to people who use the service, to their carers and to staff. We also review information we have gathered about the provider, check the service's records and check whether the right systems and processes are in place. We focus on whether or not the provider is meeting the standards and we are guided by whether people are experiencing the outcomes they should be able to expect when the standards are being met. By outcomes we mean the impact care has on the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service, and the experience they have whilst receiving it. Our inspectors judge if any action is required by the provider of the service to improve the standard of care being provided. Where providers are non-compliant with the regulations, we take enforcement action against them. If we require a service to take action, or if we take enforcement action, we re-inspect it before its next routine inspection was due. This could mean we re-inspect a service several times in one year. We also might decide to reinspect a service if new concerns emerge about it before the next routine inspection. In between inspections we continually monitor information we have about providers. The information comes from the public, the provider, other organisations, and from care workers. You can tell us about your experience of this provider on our website. Inspection Report Reach Sistine Manor October

14 How we define our judgements The following pages show our findings and regulatory judgement for each essential standard or part of the standard that we inspected. Our judgements are based on the ongoing review and analysis of the information gathered by CQC about this provider and the evidence collected during this inspection. We reach one of the following judgements for each essential standard inspected. This means that the standard was being met in that the provider was compliant with the regulation. If we find that standards were met, we take no regulatory action but we may make comments that may be useful to the provider and to the public about minor improvements that could be made. Action needed This means that the standard was not being met in that the provider was non-compliant with the regulation. We may have set a compliance action requiring the provider to produce a report setting out how and by when changes will be made to make sure they comply with the standard. We monitor the implementation of action plans in these reports and, if necessary, take further action. We may have identified a breach of a regulation which is more serious, and we will make sure action is taken. We will report on this when it is complete. Enforcement action taken If the breach of the regulation was more serious, or there have been several or continual breaches, we have a range of actions we take using the criminal and/or civil procedures in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and relevant regulations. These enforcement powers include issuing a warning notice; restricting or suspending the services a provider can offer, or the number of people it can care for; issuing fines and formal cautions; in extreme cases, cancelling a provider or managers registration or prosecuting a manager or provider. These enforcement powers are set out in law and mean that we can take swift, targeted action where services are failing people. Inspection Report Reach Sistine Manor October

15 How we define our judgements (continued) Where we find non-compliance with a regulation (or part of a regulation), we state which part of the regulation has been breached. Only where there is non compliance with one or more of Regulations 9-24 of the Regulated Activity Regulations, will our report include a judgement about the level of impact on people who use the service (and others, if appropriate to the regulation). This could be a minor, moderate or major impact. Minor impact - people who use the service experienced poor care that had an impact on their health, safety or welfare or there was a risk of this happening. The impact was not significant and the matter could be managed or resolved quickly. Moderate impact - people who use the service experienced poor care that had a significant effect on their health, safety or welfare or there was a risk of this happening. The matter may need to be resolved quickly. Major impact - people who use the service experienced poor care that had a serious current or long term impact on their health, safety and welfare, or there was a risk of this happening. The matter needs to be resolved quickly We decide the most appropriate action to take to ensure that the necessary changes are made. We always follow up to check whether action has been taken to meet the standards. Inspection Report Reach Sistine Manor October

16 Glossary of terms we use in this report Essential standard The essential standards of quality and safety are described in our Guidance about compliance: Essential standards of quality and safety. They consist of a significant number of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations These regulations describe the essential standards of quality and safety that people who use health and adult social care services have a right to expect. A full list of the standards can be found within the Guidance about compliance. The 16 essential standards are: Respecting and involving people who use services - Outcome 1 (Regulation 17) Consent to care and treatment - Outcome 2 (Regulation 18) Care and welfare of people who use services - Outcome 4 (Regulation 9) Meeting Nutritional Needs - Outcome 5 (Regulation 14) Cooperating with other providers - Outcome 6 (Regulation 24) Safeguarding people who use services from abuse - Outcome 7 (Regulation 11) Cleanliness and infection control - Outcome 8 (Regulation 12) Management of medicines - Outcome 9 (Regulation 13) Safety and suitability of premises - Outcome 10 (Regulation 15) Safety, availability and suitability of equipment - Outcome 11 (Regulation 16) Requirements relating to workers - Outcome 12 (Regulation 21) Staffing - Outcome 13 (Regulation 22) Supporting Staff - Outcome 14 (Regulation 23) Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision - Outcome 16 (Regulation 10) Complaints - Outcome 17 (Regulation 19) Records - Outcome 21 (Regulation 20) Regulated activity These are prescribed activities related to care and treatment that require registration with CQC. These are set out in legislation, and reflect the services provided. Inspection Report Reach Sistine Manor October

17 Glossary of terms we use in this report (continued) (Registered) Provider There are several legal terms relating to the providers of services. These include registered person, service provider and registered manager. The term 'provider' means anyone with a legal responsibility for ensuring that the requirements of the law are carried out. On our website we often refer to providers as a 'service'. Regulations We regulate against the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations Responsive inspection This is carried out at any time in relation to identified concerns. Routine inspection This is planned and could occur at any time. We sometimes describe this as a scheduled inspection. Themed inspection This is targeted to look at specific standards, sectors or types of care. Inspection Report Reach Sistine Manor October

18 Contact us Phone: Write to us at: Care Quality Commission Citygate Gallowgate Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4PA Website: Copyright Copyright (2011) Care Quality Commission (CQC). This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part, free of charge, in any format or medium provided that it is not used for commercial gain. This consent is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and on proviso that it is not used in a derogatory manner or misleading context. The material should be acknowledged as CQC copyright, with the title and date of publication of the document specified. Inspection Report Reach Sistine Manor October