Archived: Margaret Riley House

Updated 29 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 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.

The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector.

Prior to our unannounced inspection on 07 June 2016, we reviewed the information we held about Margaret Riley. This included notifications we had received from the provider, about incidents that affect the health, safety and welfare of people who lived at the home. We checked safeguarding alerts, comments and concerns received about the home. At the time of our inspection there were no safeguarding concerns being investigated by the local authority.

We spoke with a range of people about this service. They included the registered manager, a staff member, one person who had regular respite at the home and three relatives. We also spoke with the commissioning department at the local authority who told us they had no ongoing concerns about Margaret Riley. We did this to gain an overview of what people experienced whilst living at the home.

We also spent time observing staff interactions with people who lived at the home and looked at records. We checked documents in relation to two people and two staff files. We reviewed records about staff training and support, as well as those related to the management and safety of Margaret Riley.

Updated 29 July 2016

The inspection visit at Margaret Riley was undertaken on 07 June 2016 and was announced. We gave 24 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure people who accessed the service, staff and visitors were available to talk with us.

Margaret Riley provides respite care and support for a maximum of three people who live with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there was one person staying at the home. Margaret Riley is situated in a residential area of Blackpool close to local amenities. All bedrooms are situated on the first floor, which can be accessed by a stair lift. Two lounges and a dining area are available so people can choose where to relax.

A registered manager was in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

At the last inspection on 11 September 2014, we found the provider was meeting the requirements of the regulations.

During this inspection, we found concerns related to the monitoring and auditing of people’s care and safety. The registered manager failed to assess and establish systems to maintain their welfare. They had not always prevented the potential for risks through service audits and there were no localised policies to guide staff. This is a breach of Regulation 17 of Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 Good Governance.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Staff completed risk assessments to protect people from potential harm. They demonstrated a good understanding of how to safeguarding individuals from abuse or poor practice. People told us they felt safe and comfortable whilst receiving respite care. A relative added, “I can go away, relax and re-energise. Then I can come back ready to take [my relative] home and care for them again.”

We observed staff completed medication processes safely. They received training and competency checks to underpin their knowledge. Medicines were stored in a safe and clean environment. A relative told us, “The staff are good with the medication and do it safely.”

We found staffing levels were sufficient in meeting people’s needs in a timely manner. Staff told us their training provision assisted them in their roles and responsibilities. Although no new staff had been recruited for four years, staff files evidenced the registered manager employed suitable staff.

We observed staff supported people with a respectful approach. They were kind and had a good understanding of maintaining their dignity and privacy. A relative told us, “[My relative] says he would be much happier at the home than staying with me. That tells me he’s well-cared for.”

Mealtime options were flexible because staff discussed with people what they wanted on a daily basis. Care records held detailed information about food likes and dislikes as well as risk assessments to protect individuals against the risks of malnutrition.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding and practice of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff further demonstrated an awareness of the principles of consent. One staff member said, “We work at a slower pace and use pictures to check for consent and their understanding.”

Staff built care records around the requirements of the individual, including their preferences and wishes. They involved people and their relatives in the regular review of care planning to ensure this responded to their changing needs.

The registered manager led the home in a transparent way and involved staff and people in the running of the home. People were supported to comment about their experiences of respite care. A relative told us, “If I go in with a suggestion I know [the registered manager] would listen and change things straight away.”