Science & Technology

We are the regulator: Our job is to check whether hospitals, care homes and care services are meeting essential standards.

Description
Inspection Report We are the regulator: Our job is to check whether hospitals, care homes and care services are meeting essential standards. Telegraph House 97 Telegraph Road, Deal, CT14 9DF Tel:
Published
of 19
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
Inspection Report We are the regulator: Our job is to check whether hospitals, care homes and care services are meeting essential standards. Telegraph House 97 Telegraph Road, Deal, CT14 9DF Tel: Date of Inspection: 06 March 2014 Date of Publication: March 2014 We inspected the following standards as part of a routine inspection. This is what we found: Respecting and involving people who use services Care and welfare of people who use services Safeguarding people who use services from abuse Supporting workers Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision Inspection Report Telegraph House March Details about this location Registered Provider Overview of the service Type of service Regulated activity Ms Justine Joy Piner Telegraph House provide a supported living service to 5 people with a learning disability. Supported living service Personal care Inspection Report Telegraph House March Contents When you read this report, you may find it useful to read the sections towards the back called 'About CQC inspections' and 'How we define our judgements'. Summary of this inspection: Page Why we carried out this inspection 4 How we carried out this inspection 4 What people told us and what we found 4 More information about the provider 4 Our judgements for each standard inspected: Respecting and involving people who use services 6 Care and welfare of people who use services 8 Safeguarding people who use services from abuse 10 Supporting workers 11 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision 12 About CQC Inspections 14 How we define our judgements 15 Glossary of terms we use in this report 17 Contact us 19 Inspection Report Telegraph House March Summary of this inspection Why we carried out this inspection This was a routine inspection to check that essential standards of quality and safety referred to on the front page were being met. We sometimes describe this as a scheduled inspection. This was an announced inspection. How we carried out this inspection We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 6 March 2014, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service and talked with staff. What people told us and what we found There were five people with learning disabilities using the service when we completed our inspection. We met and spoke with all of them. We also spoke with the owner and three staff members. Everyone we spoke with said that they were happy with the service they received at Telegraph House. One person told us, The staff are really, really nice . Another person said The staff are kind to me . Staff knew how to support people to make decisions and acted upon their decisions. People were treated with dignity and respect. People were involved in planning their care and support on an on-going basis. People's care and support changed as their needs changed or at their request. People were protected because staff knew how to recognise and respond to potential risks to people's safety and welfare. Staff were supported by the manager to provide a safe and appropriate service which met people's individual needs. The provider had implemented a person centred process to assess and monitor the quality of the service and responded to people's comments about the service they received. You can see our judgements on the front page of this report. More information about the provider Please see our website for more information, including our most recent judgements against the essential standards. You can contact us using the telephone number on the back of the report if you have additional questions. Inspection Report Telegraph House March There is a glossary at the back of this report which has definitions for words and phrases we use in the report. Inspection Report Telegraph House March Our judgements for each standard inspected Respecting and involving people who use services People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected. People's views were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. Reasons for our judgement People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and support. All of the people using the service showed us their person centred plans. They told us that they had developed their plans with staff and other people who were important to them, such as their families. The plans contained pictures and photographs of the person and the people and activities that were important to them. This meant that people were involved in planning the service they received and had a plan which was easy for everyone to understand. People we spoke with told us that staff asked them to make decisions every day about their care and support. For example, if and when they wanted a bath or shower. One staff member we spoke with told us, We don't assume people can't make decisions. Giving people a choice is very important . People were supported in promoting their independence. All the people we spoke with said that the staff supported them to be as independent as they could be in all areas of their life including meeting their personal care needs. People told us that staff provided the help they needed when they asked for it. We saw that each person was supported to plan their weekly menu and do their weekly shop locally. This meant that people were supported to use their community and be as independent as they could be. People's diversity, values and human rights were respected. Staff we spoke to described how they maintained people's privacy and safety during their care. For example, closing doors and waiting outside the bathroom so people had privacy but staff were able to respond if people required support. People we spoke with told us that staff respected their privacy and confirmed what staff had told us. This meant that people were given privacy but staff were able to take action to keep them safe when necessary. Inspection Report Telegraph House March We observed that staff treated people respectfully. For example, we heard staff knock on people's doors before entering their rooms and call them by their preferred names. This meant that people were treated with dignity and respect. Some people using the service used sign language to communicate. We saw staff and people using the service communicating with each other using sign language and speech. Staff were able to understand what people were saying to them and responded appropriately. This meant that people could be confident that staff understood what they were saying. Inspection Report Telegraph House March Care and welfare of people who use services People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. Care and support was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Reasons for our judgement People we spoke with said that the staff were helpful and provided the support and care they needed in the way that they liked. People's needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Each person using the service had a support plan in place which provided guidance to staff about how to provide the care and support people required. These plans were based upon people's assessed needs and their person centred plan. People's plans included information about what they person could do for themselves and the support they required from staff. For example, what support people required with washing their hair or shaving. People and staff we spoke with confirmed that the information in the plans was correct. This meant that people received safe and consistent care and support. Care and support was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Support plans contained detailed information to ensure that people's safety and welfare was managed effectively. For example, we saw that some people had medical conditions such as diabetes. There was detailed guidance to show staff how they should support the person when their blood sugar was too high or too low and when to seek medical advice. This meant that people were receiving appropriate support with their medical conditions. We saw that when the care and support people required changed that staff were informed in writing about the changes. We also saw evidence in the minutes of weekly staff meetings that changes in people's planned support were discussed. This meant that changes in peoples' needs had been identified and shared with staff in a timely way. The provider may find it useful to note that people's care plans had not been consistently amended to reflect the change in the support provided. Potential risks to people had been identified and care and support was planned to reduce risks whilst ensuring people remained independent. For example, there was a process in place to monitor and respond to emergencies when people with epilepsy were bathing. Inspection Report Telegraph House March This meant that risks had been identified and action had been taken to keep people as safe as possible. Inspection Report Telegraph House March Safeguarding people who use services from abuse People should be protected from abuse and staff should respect their human rights Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Reasons for our judgement People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Observations during our visit showed there was a relaxed atmosphere and people chatted openly with each other and staff. People we spoke with said that they felt safe at the service and told us the staff were kind to them. Staff we spoke with told us that they had completed safeguarding training, we saw records which confirmed this. Staff demonstrated their understanding of safeguarding and know who to contact in and outside of the organisation if they had any concerns, for example the manager and the local Social Services department. This meant that staff could identify the possibility of abuse and obtain support for vulnerable people. The safeguarding policy was detailed so that staff had guidance on safeguarding procedures. Staff we spoke with had knowledge of the local Social Services safeguarding procedures. They understood the importance of whistle blowing and there was also a policy and procedure in place for them to refer to if necessary. This meant that systems were put in place to identify the risk of potential abuse and take appropriate action to safeguard people. Inspection Report Telegraph House March Supporting workers Staff should be properly trained and supervised, and have the chance to develop and improve their skills Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and support safely and to an appropriate standard. Reasons for our judgement Staff received appropriate training and development. People we spoke with told us that staff had the skills to meet their needs. Staff we spoke with said that they had completed training to develop the skills they needed to provide care and support to people using the service. They gave us examples of some of the training they had completed, including moving and handling, first aid, epilepsy and safeguarding. Training certificates we saw confirmed what staff had told us. Staff told us and we saw evidence to confirm that staff were able, from time to time, to obtain further relevant qualifications. We saw that staff had completed National Vocational Qualifications in Social care. This meant that staff had the skills to provide people's care safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff were supported to deliver safe and appropriate care and support. Staff we spoke with said that they felt supported by the manager and the staff team. One person told us, It works really well here, staff are happy and feel supported . Another staff member told us, I feel supported. We work well as a team . The manager had a process in place to provide staff with supervision every six to eight weeks. Staff we spoke with and records we saw confirmed that they received supervision from the manager frequently. Staff told us they discussed their practice, training and development and any problems and stresses they had during their supervision. This meant that staff were supported to develop and improve the quality of the service they provide to people using the service. Inspection Report Telegraph House March Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service. Reasons for our judgement People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. The manager was in the process of completing the first quality assurance review of the service at the time of our inspection. An independent consultant had been employed to develop the process and support people using the service to share their views. We saw that individual questionnaires, using words and pictures the person understood, had been created for each person. Questionnaires had also been sent to people's relatives and professionals involved in their care and support and were being returned to the consultant. This meant that the service had implemented a process to obtain the views of a variety of people about the quality of the service. Staff told us and we saw evidence to demonstrate that staff meetings are held weekly. The way that the service was delivered was discussed and staff made suggestions for improvements. One staff member told us, We work at things together as a team to get it right for people . Staff were involved in the continuous improvement of the service people received. The manager told us and staff we spoke with confirmed that she often worked on the floor with staff at times and observes staff practice. We saw evidence that the manager reviewed any incident and accident records to establish possible trends. She also completed audits of support plans, financial records and health and safety to ensure service was safe. The provider had processes in place to continually assess that the service people received was safe and appropriate. The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. We found that the service had a formal complaints process in place, however, no formal complaints had been received. We saw evidence to demonstrate that the service operated Inspection Report Telegraph House March an effective informal complaints and comment process. People's comments and concerns had been recorded and action taken to address them. Inspection Report Telegraph House March About CQC inspections We are the regulator of health and social care in England. All providers of regulated health and social care services have a legal responsibility to make sure they are meeting essential standards of quality and safety. These are the standards everyone should be able to expect when they receive care. The essential standards are described in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations We regulate against these standards, which we sometimes describe as government standards . We carry out unannounced inspections of all care homes, acute hospitals and domiciliary care services in England at least once a year to judge whether or not the essential standards are being met. We carry out inspections of other services less often. All of our inspections are unannounced unless there is a good reason to let the provider know we are coming. There are 16 essential standards that relate most directly to the quality and safety of care and these are grouped into five key areas. When we inspect we could check all or part of any of the 16 standards at any time depending on the individual circumstances of the service. Because of this we often check different standards at different times. When we inspect, we always visit and we do things like observe how people are cared for, and we talk to people who use the service, to their carers and to staff. We also review information we have gathered about the provider, check the service's records and check whether the right systems and processes are in place. We focus on whether or not the provider is meeting the standards and we are guided by whether people are experiencing the outcomes they should be able to expect when the standards are being met. By outcomes we mean the impact care has on the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service, and the experience they have whilst receiving it. Our inspectors judge if any action is required by the provider of the service to improve the standard of care being provided. Where providers are non-compliant with the regulations, we take enforcement action against them. If we require a service to take action, or if we take enforcement action, we re-inspect it before its next routine inspection was due. This could mean we re-inspect a service several times in one year. We also might decide to reinspect a service if new concerns emerge about it before the next routine inspection. In between inspections we continually monitor information we have about providers. The information comes from the public, the provider, other organisations, and from care workers. You can tell us about your experience of this provider on our website. Inspection Report Telegraph House March How we define our judgements The following pages show our findings and regulatory judgement for each essential standard or part of the standard that we inspected. Our judgements are based on the ongoing review and analysis of the information gathered by CQC about this provider and the evidence collected during this inspection. We reach one of the following judgements for each essential standard inspected. This means that the standard was being met in that the provider was compliant with the regulation. If we find that standards were met, we take no regulatory action but we may make comments that may be useful to the provider and to the public about minor improvements that could be made. Action needed This means that the standard was not being met in that the provider was non-compliant with the regulation. We may have set a compliance action requiring the provider to produce a report setting out how and by when changes will be made to make sure they comply with the standard. We monitor the implementation of action plans in these reports and, if necessary, take further action. We may have identified a breach of a regulation which is more serious, and we will make sure action is taken. We will report on this when it is complete. Enforcement action taken If the breach of the regulation was more serious, or there hav
Search
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks