Archived: St Anne's Community Services - Fernlea

Updated 6 April 2017

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 11 January 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was conducted by an adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by experience on this inspection was a family carer.

Prior to our inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included information from notifications received from the registered provider, and feedback from the local authority safeguarding and commissioners. Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This 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. We used this information to help plan the inspection.

At the time of this inspection there were six people living at Fernlea. Some people who used the service were unable to communicate verbally and as we were not familiar with their way of communicating we used a number of different methods to help us understand people’s experiences. We spent time in the living areas observing the support people received. We spoke with two people who used the service and three relatives. We spoke with four members of support staff, the registered manager and the area manager. We looked in the bedrooms of four people who used the service with permission. After the inspection we received feedback from one community healthcare professional.

During our inspection we spent time looking at four people’s care and support records. We also looked at two records relating to staff recruitment, training records, maintenance records, and a selection of the service’s audits.

Updated 6 April 2017

This inspection of St Anne’s Community Services-Fernlea, known by the people who live and work there as Fernlea, took place on 11 January 2017 and was unannounced. This meant they did not know we were coming. The service was last inspected on 22 and 26 June 2016. At that time the service was not meeting the regulations related to person centred care, safe care and treatment, and good governance.

After the last inspection we issued a warning notice for Regulation 17, good governance and told the registered provider to make improvements. The registered provider sent us an action plan telling us what they were going to do to make sure they were meeting the regulations. On this inspection we checked to see if improvements had been made.

Fernlea has seven beds providing accommodation, care and treatment to adults aged between 18 and 65 who have a learning disability and other complex health care needs. The home is split into two sections. One section has three beds for people with a learning disability and behaviours that may challenge others and the other section has four beds offering accommodation for people with a learning disability and physical health needs. At the time of our inspection there were six people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Relatives we spoke with told us they were confident their relative was safe at Fernlea.

Staff had a good understanding of how to safeguard adults from abuse and who to contact if they suspected any abuse. The provider had safe recruitment and selection procedures in place.

At our last inspection we found not all risk assessments were up to date and reflective of people’s current needs and risks. On this inspection we found improvements had been made and all the risk assessments we sampled provided detailed direction for staff when providing support in order to reduce risks to people.

At our last inspection we found there were not always enough staff to provide a good level of interaction for people who used the service and keep them safe. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the registered provider had taken action to increase staffing, although familiar agency staff were still used due to problems with staff recruitment.

At the time of this inspection the registered provider was planning to change the service from a service providing nursing care to one providing non-nursing care in a supported living setting and the process of change had impacted on staff morale and sickness levels.

Medicines were managed in a safe way for people and gaps in the recording of administration of medicines had been picked up and explored.

Staff had received an induction, supervision, appraisal and specialist training to enable them to provide support to the people who used the service.

People’s consent to care and treatment was always sought in line with legislation and guidance. People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Meals were planned on an individual basis and people were supported to eat a balanced diet. A range of healthcare professionals were involved in people’s care.

Staff were caring and supported people in a way that maintained their dignity, privacy and human rights. People were supported to be as independent as possible throughout their daily lives.

Evidence of people’s access to activities in line with their care plans had improved although activities outside the home for some people were still limited.

People were able to make choices about their care. People’s care plans detailed the care and support they required and included information about peoples likes and dislikes. Individual needs were met through the development of detailed personalised care plans.

Relatives we spoke with told us they were very happy with the service and were complimentary about the management of the service.

The registered manager had improved governance and worked hard to improve the service to benefit the people who used it. The registered manager was visible in the home and knew the needs of the people who used the service.

The registered provider had an overview of the service and took action to improve the quality and safety of the service provided.

People, their representatives, and staff were asked for their views about the service and they were acted on.

Shortly after this inspection the service was decommissioned and people using the service were transferred to other services. The service is no longer in operation.