Archived: Speymill House

The service provides personal care to people living in their own homes with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. There were four people receiving support at the time of our visit.

The service was last inspected on 12 July 2013 when we found the provider was compliant with the essential standards described in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection.

People received care from staff who had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and knew what actions to take if they had any concerns. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s individual needs and keep them safe. Identified risks were assessed and managed in a way that promoted people’s safety. There was a safe procedure for managing people’s medicines and people received their medicines as prescribed.

Relatives told us staff were friendly and caring and had the right skills to provide the care and support they required. Staff received an induction when they started working for the service and completed training to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively. Staff were positive about the training and support they received. They told us it enabled them to meet the needs of people in the home.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) to ensure people were looked after in a way that did not inappropriately restrict their freedom. This included applications made to the relevant authority for any restrictions to people's freedom that were deemed necessary to keep them safe; known as Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were encouraged to eat a varied diet that took into account their preferences and any nutritional needs. People were supported effectively with their health needs and had access to a range of healthcare professionals.

There was a consistent staff team who knew people’s abilities, support needs and preferred routines. People were relaxed with staff who took time to listen to them and understand their needs. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and treated them as individuals. People were able to maintain personal relationships with people that were important to them.

Each person had a care and support plan with detailed information and guidance personal to them. Support plans included information on maintaining the person's health, daily routines and their preferences.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided. The managers regularly reviewed the care and support people received and took action to continuously improve the service. Staff told us they felt supported by the managers who were approachable and open to suggestions about the service people received.

People we spoke with were satisfied with the way the service supported people's care and welfare. Their comments included "They are really good at managing behaviour. My relative is happy and settled there."

"They are doing everything they need to."

We looked at the care files of three people who used the service. We also spoke to four members of staff as part of our inspection. We looked at some records relating to the running of the service such as the staff personnel files.

People told us the same staff regularly provided their relative's care and support. People said this was important to them. It meant staff were familiar with their needs.

The service had a policy in place for responding to suspicions or allegations of abuse. The manager was aware of their role and responsibilities in responding to allegations of abuse. Staff we spoke with told us they would report any observations of potential abuse to the person in charge and felt confident their concerns would be acted upon.

The service had an effective system in place to monitor the quality of service that people receive.

We told the provider they must make improvements to the way they managed record keeping.

We found that provider had taken the necessary action to achieve compliance and improve outcomes for people using the service.

Three of the five people spoken with were satisfied with the way the service supported people's care and welfare. Their comments included, "It's a good service. I see my relative weekly and I can see that their needs are being met."

We spoke with the manager, locality manager and two care staff. We also looked at some records relating to the running of the service such as the staff personnel files and allocations. We looked at the care files of two people using the service.

People told us the same staff regularly provided their care and support. People said this was important to them. It meant staff were familiar with their needs and it supported good relationships between the staff and people using the service.

People we spoke with expressed some concerns about communication. They said, 'Some of the problems have been due to a lack of communication during the 'takeovers'. We have met with the new manager to try and sort things out.'

We found that records were not accurately maintained which meant people were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment.