Archived: Kadima Support UK Limited No 35

Updated 1 June 2015

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 registered provider was 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.

The inspection took place on 23 and 28 February 2015. The inspection was unannounced on the first day and we informed the service that we would be returning on the second day.

The inspection team consisted of an 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 service.

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.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed information contained in the PIR along with other information we held about the home. This included notifications of significant incidents reported to CQC.

We spoke with four people who used the service, three care staff and the registered manager. We spoke with the relatives of three people after the inspection. We observed the support and care provided to people in the communal areas and looked around the premises. Two people showed us their bedrooms.

We reviewed three care plans and the accompanying risk assessments. We also looked at a range of documents including four staff records, the complaints log, the safeguarding policy and procedure, medicine administration record (MAR) sheets, four staff records, health and safety records, and quality assurance audits.

We contacted health and social care professionals with knowledge of this service in order to find out their views about the quality of the service. We received feedback from a mental health community nurse, a social worker and a local authority contracts monitoring officer. We used this shared information to assist our inspection.

Updated 1 June 2015

The inspection took place on the 23 and 28 February 2015. This was the first inspection of the service since it registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 October 2014, having been previously owned and managed by a different provider. Kadima Support UK Limited No.35 is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to six people with mental health problems. The service was at full occupancy at the time of our inspection and all of the people using the service were male.

There are six single occupancy bedrooms, of which two are equipped with en-suite facilities. There is a communal sitting room, kitchen and dining room, computer area, bathrooms and shower rooms. There is a garden at the back of the premises.

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 have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Policies and procedures were in place to protect people from harm or abuse, and staff had received safeguarding training. Staff understood the signs of abuse and how to report any concerns about people’s safety and wellbeing.

Care plans contained up-to-date risk assessments, which provided guidance about how to promote people’s safety while supporting their wishes to make choices and be as independent as possible.

People were supported by sufficient staff to meet their identified needs. At the time of the inspection additional staff were employed at night time to make sure people’s needs were being safely met.

Medicines were safely managed and staff had received medicines training.

Appropriate checks were carried out to make sure that the premises were safe and well maintained.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report upon our findings. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is regarded as necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, to protect themselves or others. We found that staff understood how to protect people’s rights and no person was subject to a DoLS authorisation.

Staff received mandatory training and other training to meet the identified needs of people using the service. Feedback from a professional who visited the service indicated that staff would benefit from additional training to understand more about people’s mental health and physical healthcare needs, and development to take on responsibilities when the registered manager was away from the premises. Staff had regular supervision and told us they felt well supported.

The food appeared to be in keeping with people’s preferences and people were encouraged to get involved with planning menus, grocery shopping and cooking.

Staff were described as being caring, helpful and respectful by people and their relatives. We observed positive interactions and saw that staff spoke to people in a calm manner if they appeared anxious.

We saw that people’s needs were identified in their care plans and were regularly reviewed. People’s healthcare and social care needs were also reviewed in their meetings with their psychiatrist and other professionals, including mental health nurses, occupational therapists and the registered manager. People were encouraged to participate in their care planning and invite a relative or friend to their review meetings if they wished to.

There was a complaints policy in place and relatives said they were confident that the registered manager would properly investigate any complaints. Some people using the service were not aware of the complaints policy, and did not know about how to access independent advocacy to support them to make a complaint.

The management of the service was good. Staff told us that the registered manager was approachable and there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, including unannounced monitoring visits by the provider and surveys sent to people, their relatives and visiting professionals.