Archived: McGillicuddy House

Updated 26 July 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 checked 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 1 July 2016, was unannounced and carried out by one inspector.

We gathered and reviewed information about the service before the inspection. We examined previous inspection reports and notifications sent to us by the registered manager about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

During our inspection we observed care in communal areas. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We spoke with four people about their experience of the service. We spoke with the deputy manager, and three staff. We contacted twelve health and social care professionals and asked for their views about the service.

We spent time looking at records, policies and procedures, complaint and incident and accident monitoring systems. We looked at three people’s care files, the staff training programme, the staff rota and medicine records.

Updated 26 July 2016

The inspection was carried out on the 1 July 2016 and was unannounced.

McGillicuddy House offers accommodation, care and support for up to 10 people with learning disabilities from those that are independent to those needing more support. The accommodation was provided over three floors in a semi-detached house with a communal living room and kitchen diner, bedrooms and communal bathrooms. There is a communal outdoor area at the rear of the property with a garden and summer-house. There were seven people living in the service when we inspected.

We last inspected the service on 10 and 11 November 2015. We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These breaches were in relation to Regulation 11, Need for consent; Regulation 12, Safe care and treatment; Regulation 13, Safeguarding people from abuse and improper treatment; Regulation 17, Good governance; Regulation 18, Staffing and Regulation 19, Fit and proper persons employed. Following the inspection the provider sent us an action plan to show how they intended to improve the service and meet the requirements of the regulations.

At this inspection we found that the provider had implemented their action plan and improvements had been made.

There was a registered manager employed at the home. 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 legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the home is run. The registered manager was not available on the day of the inspection, and the deputy manager assisted with the inspection process.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Management understood when an application should be made. They were aware of the Supreme Court Judgement which widened and clarified the definition of a deprivation of liberty. The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

The registered manager and staff had received training about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood when and how to support peoples best interest if they lacked capacity to make certain decisions about their care.

People said they felt safe and relatives told us that they knew their relatives were safe. People were protected against the risk of abuse. People told us they felt safe. Staff had recently had updated training and recognised the signs of abuse or neglect and what to look out for. Management and staff understood their role and responsibilities to report any concerns and were confident in doing so. Staff told us they knew what to do if they needed to whistle blow, and there was a whistleblowing policy available.

People had varied needs, and some of the people living in the service had a limited ability to verbally communicate with us or engage directly in the inspection process. People demonstrated that they were happy by showing warmth to the provider, deputy manager and staff who were supporting them. Staff were attentive and interacted with people in a warm and friendly manner. Staff were available throughout the day, and responded quickly to people’s requests for help.

There were enough staff with the skills required to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited using procedures designed to protect people from the employment of unsuitable staff. Gaps in applicants employment history had been followed up and DBS checks had been updated as appropriate. Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and were supported through regular supervision and an annual appraisal so they were supported to carry out their roles.

There were risk assessments in place for the environment, and for each person who received care. Assessments had been updated and were individual for each person. Assessments identified people’s specific needs, and showed how risks could be minimised. There were systems in place to review accidents and incidents and make any relevant improvements as a result.

People and their relatives were involved in planning their own care, and staff supported them in making arrangements to meet their health needs. Staff contacted other health and social care professionals for support and advice, such as doctors, speech and language therapist (SALT) and dieticians.

There were policies and a procedure in place for the safe administration of medicines. People had access to GPs and other health care professionals. Prompt referrals were made for access to specialist health care professionals.

People could easily access food and drink and snacks during the day. People were involved in shopping. Staff knew people that lived in the service well and were engaged in meaningful and fun conversations with people. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible.

There were regular minuted ‘housemates’ meetings where people were able to talk about things that were important to them and about the things they wanted to do. We saw evidence of people going to regular activities in the community and in the home.

People were aware of the complaints procedure and they knew who to talk to if they were worried or concerned about anything. Relatives said that they knew who to complain to if they had any concerns and provided positive feedback on the service as a whole. The deputy manager said there had been no complaints made since the last inspection in November 2015.

The registered manager had sought the views of people living in the service as well as relatives. The results of these surveys were positive.

The provider and registered manager regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care to ensure standards were met and maintained. The providers and registered manager understood the requirements of their registration with the CQC.