Background to this inspection
Updated
8 April 2016
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 took place on 21 December 2015, was announced and carried out by one adult social care inspector.
Before this inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, such as notifications we had received from the registered provider and information we had received from the local authorities that commission a service. We contacted the local authority safeguarding adults and quality monitoring teams to enquire about any recent involvement they have had with the service. We also requested a ‘provider information return’ [PIR], which we received in October 2015. A PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make
On the day of the inspection we spoke with one person who lived at the service, two members of staff, the registered manager and one visiting relative. We spent time looking at records, which included the care files and medicine records for one person using the service, the recruitment and training records for three staff, equipment and maintenance records and records held in respect of complaints and compliments. We observed staff providing support to people and the interactions between people that used the service and staff in communal areas. We also looked around the premises which included people’s personal accommodation [after asking their permission to do so], bathroom facilities and dining and kitchen areas.
Updated
8 April 2016
This inspection took place on 21 December 2015 and was announced, which meant that the staff and registered provider knew that we would be visiting. 24 hours’ notice was given as the service was small and the registered manager may have been unavailable if the visit was unannounced.
We previously visited the service on 13 December 2013 and we found that the registered provider met the regulations we assessed.
47 Cottesmore Road is a small residential care home located in the town of Hessle in the East Riding of Yorkshire. The service is close to the local shops and amenities and has easy access to public transport and sports and social facilities nearby. The service provides accommodation for up to two people who may have a learning disability.
The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission [CQC]. 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 were protected from the risks of harm or abuse because the registered provider had effective systems in place to manage any safeguarding concerns. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of protecting people from the risk of harm.
Staff had been employed following the registered providers recruitment and selection policies and this ensured that only people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people had been employed at 47 Cottesmore Road.
Staff had received training on the administration of medicines and we saw there were systems in place to manage and handle medicines safely.
Staff received induction, training and supervision from the registered providers and we saw they had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the people living at 47 Cottesmore Road.
The registered manager understood the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] and we found that Mental Capacity Act [MCA] 2005 guidelines had been fully followed.
People had their health and social care needs assessed and plans of care were developed to guide staff in how to support people. The plans of care were individualised to include people’s preferences, likes and dislikes. People who used the service received additional care and treatment from health care professionals based in the community.
Staff supported people using the service to have choice and control and to maintain their privacy and dignity. We found that staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for and saw they interacted positively with people living at the service.