Archived: Omnia

Omnia is a registered care home and provides accommodation and support for up to 15 people who have mental health support needs. There were 14 people living at the service when we visited.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿ People were protected from the risk of avoidable harm because staff had been safely recruited and they knew how to recognise and report abuse. There were systems in place to make sure the service was safe, with good staffing levels and skilled staff to deliver good quality care. Risks to people were fully assessed and well managed.

¿ People’s medicines were managed safely and in line with best practice guidelines. Systems were in place to ensure that people were protected by the prevention and control of infection. Accidents and incidents were analysed for lessons learnt and these were shared with the staff team to reduce further reoccurrence.

¿ People’s needs and choices were assessed and their care provided in line with their preferences. Staff received an induction process when they first commenced work at the service and received on-going training to ensure they could provide care based on current practice when supporting people.

¿ 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 principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) were followed.

¿ People received enough to eat and drink and were supported to use and access a variety of other services and social care professionals. People were supported to access health appointments when required, including opticians and doctors, to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.

¿ People continued to receive care from staff who were kind and caring. People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided and their privacy and dignity were protected and promoted. People had developed positive relationships with staff who had a good understanding of their needs and preferences.

¿ People received person centred care that met their needs. Care plans were person centred and set out how staff should meet people's needs. The staff team were knowledgeable about people’s needs. Managers and staff ensured information was provided to people in an accessible format. People took part in a range of group and one-to-one activities depending on their preferences. People said they knew how to make a complaint if needed.

¿ People, relatives and staff told us the service was well managed and had an open and friendly culture. Staff said they felt well supported and the management team were open and approachable. The provider’s audit system covered all aspects of the service and helped to ensure the care people received was appropriate and safe. Managers and staff worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure people got the care and support they needed.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 8 July 2016)

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive 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

This inspection was undertaken on 23 June 2016 and was unannounced. A registered manager was in post at the time of this inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the home is run.

Omnia provided people with safe care and protected them from the risk of harm. People’s medicines were managed and administered in a safe way and people were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. People’s individual health and safety risks were assessed and these were well-managed by care staff. Satisfactory recruitment checks were completed so that only suitable staff were employed at the home.

People were involved in the planning of their care and care was provided in accordance with their preferences and wishes. Staff had received training so that they were able to safely support people with their mental health care needs. People said they were supported by staff with healthy eating options and received support to maintain their dietary and nutritional needs. People were supported to access a range of healthcare services to monitor their mental health and physical care needs.

There were friendly, respectful and supportive relationships in place between staff and people living at the home. People were treated with respect and they and their relatives were actively involved in the review of their care plans.

People’s rights in making decisions and suggestions in relation to their support and care were valued and acted upon by staff. Individual social hobbies and interests were provided to maintain and promote people’s sense of wellbeing.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We found that people’s rights were being protected. There were no DoLS applications in progress at the time of this inspection as these were not needed.

Complaints and concerns made to the registered manager and staff were acted upon to satisfactorily meet the person’s needs. There was regular contact with health care professionals and members of the local mental health teams which ensured that people’s needs were discussed, monitored and reviewed.

Staff were enthusiastic about their work and felt supported and managed so that they could effectively provide people with support. There were regular meetings in place where people, staff and managers were able to discuss issues and developments in a proactive manner. Quality audits and monitoring procedures were in place and there were effective actions to address any improvements that were needed.

This inspection was carried out by a single inspector. As part of our inspection we spoke with three people who were receiving support, the manager, and five staff working at the service. Eleven people were using the service at the day of our inspection. A registered manager was in post at this service. We looked at the support plans for four people. We used the evidence collected during our inspection to answer five questions.

Is the service safe?

Risk assessments regarding people's individual activities were carried out and measures were in place to minimise these risks.

Staff had an understanding of their roles and responsibilities in making sure people were protected from the risk of abuse and correct procedures had been followed. People who used the service told us that they felt safe and they felt confident to report any concerns.

Overall, there were appropriate recruitment and selection processes in place.

The provider had a system in place to demonstrate that they had given consideration to whether each person using the service had the capacity to make decisions about their day to day care under the Mental Capacity Act (2005). The Mental Capacity Act is a law which requires an assessment to be made to determine whether a person can make a specific decision at the time it needs to be made. It also requires that any decision made on someone's behalf is recorded, including the reasons why it has been made, how the person's wishes have affected the decision and how they were involved in the decision making process. The provider was taking appropriate action to ensure that people's rights were protected by appropriate consideration and use of the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Is the service effective?

People we spoke with told us that they were happy with the service which they received.

Staff were knowledgeable about people's individual health and wellbeing needs. They worked closely with health professionals to ensure that people's needs were met.

The care plans were personal to each individual and were reviewed on a regular basis. Assessments of any potential risks to people had been carried out and measures put in place to reduce the risks.

Staff told us they received a very good level of training and felt equipped to undertake their role at the service. One member of staff said, "It is so friendly here. We swap shifts. We work well together. We work well in a crisis."

Is the service caring?

We saw how members of staff spoke with people and this was done in a friendly and respectful way. We saw that staff were friendly and approachable. Staff spoke in a caring and empathetic way about the needs of each person who used the service.

One person who used the service said, 'I enjoy it here, staff are very supportive."

Staff promoted the independence of people who used the service and supported people to engage in meaningful activities which suited their individual choice. One member of staff said, 'Our aim is for people to live independently

Is the service responsive?

Before people received any care or support they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. One person said,' The staff are lovely and polite to me. They ask before they come in to my room."

We saw that people's individual physical and mental health needs and their social care and support needs were assessed and met. This included people's individual choices and preferences as to how they wished to spend their day.

People's needs and care plans were regularly reviewed by the staff and management at the home. Referrals were made to health professionals to ensure that people received appropriate support by people with the most appropriate knowledge and skills.

The staff we spoke with told us they were trained to do their job and knew how to meet the needs of people using the service.

Is the service well led?

The service had a registered manager in place.

Staff told us they felt well supported supported by the management team. One member of staff said, "We feel well supported by the manager."

Staff told us they received regular supervisions and appraisal meetings. We saw evidence that this was the case.

The manager had effective systems in place for managing complaints. People who used the service said they were confident to raise any concerns or complaints they had with the manager.

The provider had effective quality assurance and audit systems in place to monitor the service and ensure improvements were made where necessary.

People spoken with confirmed that they were pleased with the levels of attention and support provided by staff and that they received a relevant therapeutic programme to address their needs. This demonstrated to us that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

The care and support pathways seen showed us that the provider worked closely with other health and social care providers within the local health economy. This demonstrated to us that people's health, safety and welfare needs were being met because the provider worked collaboratively with others.

Staff spoken with told us that they felt well supported by the provider and they were good opportunities for training and career development. This showed us that people were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

We saw that monitoring of the services provided took place and that evidence was seen of the actions taken in response to any identified concerns. This showed us that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess the quality of service that people receive.

Everyone we spoke with confirmed that they were happy with the standard of care and attention provided by staff. For example one person told us that, 'The staff go beyond the call of duty for me'. This demonstrated to us that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. One person told us that, 'The food is okay and we have plenty of choice'. Someone else said, 'We all help each other round here and that includes meal times'. This showed us that people were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration.

We saw sufficient staff were available to provide therapeutic activities and support for people. This demonstrated to us that there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs in this service. We saw that any informal concerns had been discussed within the regular clients' forum meetings. Evidence was seen that these had been reviewed and addressed by staff. This showed us that there was an effective complaints system available and that any comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.