Archived: Grove Villa Supported Living

Updated 4 May 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) 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 Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

This inspection was carried out by two inspectors.

Service and service type:

This service provides care and support to people living in a ‘supported living’ setting, so that they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that the provider is legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. At the time of the inspection the manager had applied to become the registered manager.

Notice of inspection:

We did not give notice of our inspection as this inspection was unannounced.

What we did:

Due to technical problems, the provider was not requested to complete a Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

We spoke to two people who used the service, the manager, a team leader and two staff who provided support to people.

We looked at three people's support plans and the recruitment records of four staff employed at the service. We viewed, medicines management, complaints, meetings minutes, health and safety assessments, accidents and incidents logs. We spoke with the provider, the manager, one team leader and one support worker.

We sought feedback from relevant health and social care professionals and commissioners from the local authority on their experience of the service.

At the inspection we asked the manager to send us some further information on training and contact information for relatives. Information we requested was received in a timely manner.

Updated 4 May 2019

About the service:

Grove Villa Supported Living is a supported living service. At the time of the inspection people all lived together in two houses. The service shares the same staff, office and manager as another supported living service (The Bungalow) which is based on the same site. The Bungalow and Grove Villa Supporting Living were inspected on the same dates. The houses were based on a large site where there were two other services provided by the same provider.

People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

Not everyone using Grove Villa Supported Living receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. There were 4 people receiving personal care at the time of our inspection.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

People’s experience of using this service:

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions, Safe, Responsive and Well-led to at least Good. We found that the provider had not undertaken actions in their action plan: all key questions had deteriorated: Safe and Well-Led were found to be Inadequate with Effective, Caring and Responsive all requiring improvement.

There was no management oversight of the service and no oversight by the provider. For example, there was a lack of auditing, complaints were not always recorded, and staff performance was not monitored. This meant that there was a risk that people were not always receiving the high quality, person centred, safe service they should expect the receive.

People were at risk of harm. Risks to people were not always managed and monitored safely. Therefore, people could not be assured that the provider, manager or staff would provide the right support to keep them safe from harm. People’s medicines were not audited, and this could have a possible impact on their health and well-being.

Staff had not received all the training they needed to enable them to support people and meet all of their needs. Staff were not up to date with training, including medicines management, which could have an impact on people’s safety.

Safe recruitment practices had not been followed before some staff started working at the service.

The outcomes for people using the service did not always reflect the principles and values of Registering the Right Support; Although staff recognised that people had the capacity to make day to day choices, people did not always receive the right support to keep them safe. People did not have person centred care plans in place. Although people’s goals were recorded, they were not dated, and it was not clear whether they were current.

People were supported to be independent and undertake daily living activities. People were engaging in the community, for example through attending clubs, accessing local shops and visiting local pubs.

People told us they liked living at the service and that they liked the staff. People were engaged in a range of activities in the community and staff supported them to maintain their independence. Staff supported people to access healthcare when needed.

We found a number of breaches of the regulations. The service did not meet characteristics of Good in any area; more information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection on the 31 May 2018 the service was rated Requires Improvement for the second consecutive time.

Why we inspected: This inspection was brought forward due to information of concern.

Enforcement and Follow Up

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘special measures’. This means we will keep the service under review and, if we do not propose to cancel the provider’s registration we will re-inspect within six months to check for significant improvements.