Archived: Rachel Mazzier House

Updated 10 January 2019

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 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.

This inspection took place on 12 December 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection we checked information that we held about the service provider. This included information from other agencies and statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about 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. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we spoke to two people who lived at the service. We also observed staff interacting with people. We spoke with two care staff and the registered manager.

We looked at the care plans and associated records for two people. We reviewed other records, including the provider’s internal checks and audits, staff training records, staff rotas, accidents, incidents and records of medicines.

Updated 10 January 2019

The inspection was announced and took place on 12 December 2018. The inspection took place on 19 May when it was rated as ‘Good.’

Rachel Mazzier House is a ‘care home.’ People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home provides accommodation for up to 6 people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. On the day of our inspection there were four people living at the home. The home is converted from a residential house in a suburb of Brighton. The home has six single bedrooms. There was a communal lounge and a dining room plus bathrooms and toilets. The home provides a service to people from the Jewish and wider community.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Staff had a good awareness of the of the importance of protecting people and what to do if they considered people were not being treated appropriately. Risks were assessed and there were procedures to mitigate these. Medicines were safely managed. Sufficient numbers of staff were provided to meet people’s needs. Checks were made on the suitability of new staff to work in a care setting. The service was clean and hygienic. Reviews of accidents and incidents took place.

Care staff were supported well and had access to a range of training courses including in the care of people with a learning disability. Staff had a good awareness of the cultural needs of people.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and people were supported to choose their own meals. Health care needs were assessed and the provider made referrals to health services where this was needed.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The provider had a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and made appropriate referrals to the local authority when people did not have capacity and whose freedom was restricted for their own safety.

Care staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were supported to make decisions about their care and support which promoted their independence. Care staff had a good understanding of the need to ensure people’s privacy was upheld and for promoting people’s rights.

People’s needs were assessed. Each person had care plans which reflected their needs, preferences and choices. People’s communication needs were assessed and communication tools were used to involve people in decision making.

People were able to raise concerns with the staff and there was a complaints procedure was made available to people.

The service was well – led. There were systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service which involved seeking the views of people, their relatives and health and social care professionals.