The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: The Bungalow

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

1 Short Street, Brownhills, Walsall, West Midlands, WS8 6AD (01543) 372333

Provided and run by:
Chase Community Homes

All Inspections

4 April 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 04, 06, 07 and 08 April 2016 and was unannounced. At the last inspection completed in May 2015 the provider was meeting all of the legal requirements that we looked at.

The Bungalow is a residential home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to seven people with autism and learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the service. The provider is required by law to have a registered manager, however, there was no registered manager in post during the inspection. 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.

We found widespread and significant shortfalls in the service.

People were not protected from harm due to managers not recognising and reporting safeguarding incidents to the local authority. Risks to people were not always identified, recorded and known to staff, therefore risks were not always managed and reduced in order to keep people safe. Medicines were not always managed safely.

People were not always protected from harm due to unsafe recruitment practices. People’s needs were not always considered when training staff members. Staff were given access to training but had not been trained in important areas such as risk assessment or autism awareness. Staff member’s competency was not checked to ensure they were effective in their roles.

People were asked for their consent to day to day tasks and activities. Where people did not have the ability to give consent we found that decisions were not always made in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s day to day health needs were met and they were supported to see healthcare professionals. Where more specialist support was needed managers were not always proactive in seeking this support.

People were not always supported in a caring, dignified and respectful way. The staff team listened to people’s basic choices and preferences and gave day to day options for people to choose from. The manager had not considered ways to involve people in their care plans. The use of advocates had not always been considered by the manager. People’s care and support plans did not always reflect their needs and preferences. People were not supported to be as involved as possible in the planning of their own care. People could access a structured activities programme although minimal work had been done to develop individualised programmes of activity for people based on their own preferences.

People were not supported by a strong management team who could identify and manage risks within the service to keep them safe. The provider had not developed effective quality assurance systems to ensure that issues within the service were identified and improvements were made where required.

We found that the provider was not meeting all of the requirements of the law. We found multiple breaches in regulations. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The overall rating for this service was 'Inadequate' and the service was therefore placed into 'Special measures'. Services in special measures are kept under review. Following the inspection we took urgent action to cancel the registration of the provider. At the time of the publication of this report, our action had been completed and there were no people living at the service.

21 and 28 May 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 21 and 28 May 2015 and was unannounced. At our last inspection on 16 October 2013, the provider was meeting all of the regulations we looked at.

The Bungalow provides accommodation and personal care to up to seven people that have learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at the home. There has been no registered manager since October 2014. There is a manager in post now and they are in the process of becoming registered. 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 living at The Bungalow were unable to tell us if they felt safe due to their complex needs. We observed people were relaxed and comfortable in their home environment and relatives told us that they felt they were safe. Staff understood what abuse was and the steps they would take if they suspected abuse.

Staff were knowledgeable about how they needed to protect people from harm. Staff were supported in their knowledge by the risk assessments and additional guidelines that were in place. The measures in place ensured that people’s freedom and independence was protected whilst any potential risks were minimised. Accidents and incidents were recorded and checked by the manager and people received their medicines as needed.

People were protected by safe recruitment practices. Staff were supported to ensure that they could meet people’s needs confidently. A wide programme of staff training was in place and the manager had implemented competency checks for the safe administration of medicines.

Closed circuit television cameras (CCTV) had been installed in the month prior to our inspection. The provider had not followed all legal requirements before the installation of these cameras.

People were supported to eat and drink in a way that supported their health and a balanced diet was made available to people. People accessed outside healthcare professionals regularly where needed. Staff understood the importance of obtaining consent and promoted choice throughout their care practice. Communication methods such as picture boards and Makaton were used to assist people in their understanding and making choices.

People were relaxed and at ease at the home. We saw warm interactions between staff and people who lived at the home. Staff told us that they enjoyed their work and we saw this reflected in the support they provided.

People received care that was personal to them. We saw that bedrooms were personalised and choices around leisure opportunities were encouraged. People were able to pursue their own interests and also take part in group activities and days out.

Care needs were regularly reviewed and a wide range of people including relatives, other representatives and professionals were involved in ensuring that the most appropriate support was in place for people. People were supported to maintain relationships with their relatives.

Relatives told us that they felt comfortable approaching the manager with any feedback or concerns that they had. Relatives and staff provided positive feedback about the new manager and improvements that had been made. We saw that due to the current absence of a deputy manager, the manager did not always have the full support required and sufficient management cover was not always available.

Some internal audits had been put in place by the manager. We found examples of effective use of these audits in identifying errors and corrective action being taken. We also found examples of situations where there were insufficient quality controls and analysis. The manager acknowledged these gaps and committed to taking steps to resolve the issues as a matter of urgency.

This inspection took place on 21 and 28 May 2015 and was unannounced. At our last inspection on 16 October 2013, the provider was meeting all of the regulations we looked at.

The Bungalow provides accommodation and personal care to up to seven people that have learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at the home. There has been no registered manager since October 2014. There is a manager in post now and they are in the process of becoming registered. 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 living at The Bungalow were unable to tell us if they felt safe due to their complex needs. We observed people were relaxed and comfortable in their home environment and relatives told us that they felt they were safe. Staff understood what abuse was and the steps they would take if they suspected abuse.

Staff were knowledgeable about how they needed to protect people from harm. Staff were supported in their knowledge by the risk assessments and additional guidelines that were in place. The measures in place ensured that people’s freedom and independence was protected whilst any potential risks were minimised. Accidents and incidents were recorded and checked by the manager and people received their medicines as needed.

People were protected by safe recruitment practices. Staff were supported to ensure that they could meet people’s needs confidently. A wide programme of staff training was in place and the manager had implemented competency checks for the safe administration of medicines.

Closed circuit television cameras (CCTV) had been installed in the month prior to our inspection. The provider had not followed all legal requirements before the installation of these cameras.

People were supported to eat and drink in a way that supported their health and a balanced diet was made available to people. People accessed outside healthcare professionals regularly where needed. Staff understood the importance of obtaining consent and promoted choice throughout their care practice. Communication methods such as picture boards and Makaton were used to assist people in their understanding and making choices.

People were relaxed and at ease at the home. We saw warm interactions between staff and people who lived at the home. Staff told us that they enjoyed their work and we saw this reflected in the support they provided.

People received care that was personal to them. We saw that bedrooms were personalised and choices around leisure opportunities were encouraged. People were able to pursue their own interests and also take part in group activities and days out.

Care needs were regularly reviewed and a wide range of people including relatives, other representatives and professionals were involved in ensuring that the most appropriate support was in place for people. People were supported to maintain relationships with their relatives.

Relatives told us that they felt comfortable approaching the manager with any feedback or concerns that they had. Relatives and staff provided positive feedback about the new manager and improvements that had been made. We saw that due to the current absence of a deputy manager, the manager did not always have the full support required and sufficient management cover was not always available.

Some internal audits had been put in place by the manager. We found examples of effective use of these audits in identifying errors and corrective action being taken. We also found examples of situations where there were insufficient quality controls and analysis. The manager acknowledged these gaps and committed to taking steps to resolve the issues as a matter of urgency.

16 October 2013

During a routine inspection

This inspection was unannounced which meant that the care staff did not know we were visiting. As part of this inspection we spoke with care staff, the manager and two relatives. We could not speak with the people that lived at the home as they could not communicate verbally.

People that lived at the home were involved in making decisions about their care. People had specialist communication needs and care staff understood how they showed their preferences. Systems were in place to make sure that when people could not make decisions actions were taken in their best interest.

People were supported to have their personal care needs met in the way they wanted. Care staff provided people with choices about their daily lives. People took part in the activities they liked to do.

People had their health care needs met. They saw the GP when they were ill and received specialist health care support when they needed it.

The provider made sure that care staff were trained and supported to provide care to an acceptable standard. New staff received induction training and all care staff undertook a range of training relevant to their role.

Systems were in place to review and monitor the quality of the service people received. Relatives and professionals' views were sought through satisfaction surveys. The home completed checks and audits to ensure that people received a safe service and to identify if improvements were needed.

15 May 2012

During a routine inspection

The people who lived at The Bungalow had complex needs. They were not able to express their thoughts about the care they received to us. We spoke to two families about the care their relatives received. One parent described the care as 'second to none'. She told us the care workers were 'brilliant'. Another parent told us about the confidence she had in all the care workers: 'they are very caring; they work very hard; they make big efforts to resolve any problems people may have'.