Review of compliance The Royal National Institute For Deaf People RNID Action on Hearing Loss Brondesbury Road Region: Location address: Type of service: London 113 Brondesbury Road Kilburn London NW6 6RY Care home service without nursing Date of Publication: April 2012 Overview of the service: The service provides accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, without nursing. Six people can be accommodated in the home in single rooms. The home provides support and accommodation to people who are hearing impaired, some with additional sensory impairments. The home is modernised semi-detached property in a residential area. There is a registered manager in place. Page 1 of 16
Summary of our findings for the essential standards of quality and safety Our current overall judgement RNID Action on Hearing Loss Brondesbury Road was meeting all the essential standards of quality and safety. The summary below describes why we carried out this review, what we found and any action required. Why we carried out this review We carried out this review as part of our routine schedule of planned reviews. How we carried out this review We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 12 March 2012, observed how people were being cared for, looked at records of people who use services, talked to staff and talked to people who use services. What people told us We observed that staff interacted with people who used the service in a caring and sensitive way. People appeared relaxed in the presence of staff and were treated with respect by them. Feedback from people who used the service included: 'I like going on holiday with my key worker' and 'I like my key worker, staff and my room'. People were given choices in relation to their daily routine and the kind of activities they participated in. People and staff communicated effectively using sign language. What we found about the standards we reviewed and how well RNID Action on Hearing Loss Brondesbury Road was meeting them Outcome 01: People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run People using the service were treated with dignity and respect by staff. Care and support was focussed on the individual and people's rights were respected. Overall, we found that RNID Action on Hearing Loss Brondesbury Road was meeting this essential standard. Outcome 04: People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights People received care and support that met their needs and minimised risks to their safety. Overall, we found that RNID Action on Hearing Loss Brondesbury Road was meeting this essential standard. Page 2 of 16
Outcome 07: People should be protected from abuse and staff should respect their human rights Staff understood how to recognise and respond to concerns in relation to safeguarding vulnerable adults. People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. Overall, we found that RNID Action on Hearing Loss Brondesbury Road was meeting this essential standard. Outcome 14: Staff should be properly trained and supervised, and have the chance to develop and improve their skills Staff were supported to perform their role effectively and had undertaken training in areas relevant to their role and professional development. The needs of people who used the service were met by competent staff. Overall, we found that RNID Action on Hearing Loss Brondesbury Road was meeting this essential standard. Outcome 16: The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care The quality of service provided to people who used the service was regularly monitored. People who used the service were protected from the risks of unsafe care. Overall, we found that RNID Action on Hearing Loss Brondesbury Road was meeting this essential standard. Other information Please see previous reports for more information about previous reviews. Page 3 of 16
What we found for each essential standard of quality and safety we reviewed Page 4 of 16
The following pages detail our findings and our regulatory judgement for each essential standard and outcome that we reviewed, linked to specific regulated activities where appropriate. We will have reached one of the following judgements for each essential standard. Compliant means that people who use services are experiencing the outcomes relating to the essential standard. A minor concern means that people who use services are safe but are not always experiencing the outcomes relating to this essential standard. A moderate concern means that people who use services are safe but are not always experiencing the outcomes relating to this essential standard and there is an impact on their health and wellbeing because of this. A major concern means that people who use services are not experiencing the outcomes relating to this essential standard and are not protected from unsafe or inappropriate care, treatment and support. Where we identify compliance, no further action is taken. Where we have concerns, the most appropriate action is taken to ensure that the necessary improvements are made. Where there are a number of concerns, we may look at them together to decide the level of action to take. More information about each of the outcomes can be found in the Guidance about compliance: Essential standards of quality and safety Page 5 of 16
Outcome 01: Respecting and involving people who use services What the outcome says This is what people who use services should expect. People who use services: * Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them. * Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support. * Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected. * Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered. What we found The provider is compliant with Outcome 01: Respecting and involving people who use services Our findings What people who use the service experienced and told us We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect by staff. Several people went out with staff during our visit and we saw staff and people who used the service communicating comfortably effectively using sign language. Other evidence Profiles of people who used the service and their likes and dislikes were displayed so that staff were aware of people's individual preferences. People who used the service were able make choices in relation to the activities they participated in and their daily routine. People were involved in devising the meal menu. They also chose the décor or their own rooms. People had been able to choose new furniture for the refurbishment of the lounge and chose the paint colours for the redecoration. Community meetings were held weekly and meeting agendas were set jointly by staff and people who used the service. People were able to raise any concerns they had in relation to maintenance and repairs. A review of care records showed that people were involved in their care and support and were able to make choices about how they spent their day. Individual activity programmes were in place. Page 6 of 16
People using the service were treated with dignity and respect by staff. Care and support was focussed on the individual and people's rights were respected. Overall, we found that RNID Action on Hearing Loss Brondesbury Road was meeting this essential standard. Page 7 of 16
Outcome 04: Care and welfare of people who use services What the outcome says This is what people who use services should expect. People who use services: * Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights. What we found The provider is compliant with Outcome 04: Care and welfare of people who use services Our findings What people who use the service experienced and told us Staff interacted with people who used the service in a caring and sensitive way and people appeared relaxed in the presence of staff. Feedback from people who used the service included: 'I like going on holiday with my key worker' and 'I like my key worker, staff and my room'. Other evidence The communal lounge had comfortable furniture, a television and selection of games and books available making it a pleasant environment for people. People who used the service had an individual key worker who met with them regularly. We saw that support plans were prepared in relation to individuals' needs. For example, one person had a support plan that had been prepared together with a staff member as a PowerPoint presentation. The person was able to keep an electronic copy of his support plan, which he preferred. People's goals were reviewed monthly. Activities were recorded and people evaluated the outcome of their support plans. Risk assessments were carried out and these were linked to people's support plans. There were risk assessments for individuals and in relation to the building and these were reviewed on a regular basis. Each person had a personal evacuation plan which made clear how they would leave the building in an emergency. Guidelines were provided to staff on how to manage behaviour that could be Page 8 of 16
challenging. People had money management plans in place where this was relevant and records of people's finances were kept. Health action plans were in place and these included people's visits to their GP, the dentist, opticians and chiropodist where appropriate. Individual activity plans were also in place. A range of activities were arranged for people including outings that included socialising with others from outside the home. The service benefitted from volunteers who came into the home and assisted people who used the service in a variety of ways. For example, one volunteer accompanied a person who used the service to church. This allowed them to participate in a wider range of activities. People received care and support that met their needs and minimised risks to their safety. Overall, we found that RNID Action on Hearing Loss Brondesbury Road was meeting this essential standard. Page 9 of 16
Outcome 07: Safeguarding people who use services from abuse What the outcome says This is what people who use services should expect. People who use services: * Are protected from abuse, or the risk of abuse, and their human rights are respected and upheld. What we found The provider is compliant with Outcome 07: Safeguarding people who use services from abuse Our findings What people who use the service experienced and told us People who used the service appeared calm and relaxed in their surroundings and in their interactions with staff. Care records showed that people asked staff for help when they needed it. Other evidence There was a safeguarding policy in place and staff had signed to say that they had read and understood the policy. There was a child protection policy in place although children rarely visited the home. Staff had undertaken training in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults provided by the local authority. Staff we spoke with confirmed this. They were able to describe possible signs of abuse and knew what to do if they had suspicions that someone was being abused. Staff had also received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and attended briefings on Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff understood how to recognise and respond to concerns in relation to safeguarding vulnerable adults. People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. Overall, we found that RNID Action on Hearing Loss Brondesbury Road was meeting this essential standard. Page 10 of 16
Outcome 14: Supporting staff What the outcome says This is what people who use services should expect. People who use services: * Are safe and their health and welfare needs are met by competent staff. What we found The provider is compliant with Outcome 14: Supporting staff Our findings What people who use the service experienced and told us On this occasion we did not speak to people who used the service about this outcome area. Other evidence Staff had undertaken training in a number of areas pertinent to their role in the home. For example, staff were trained in British Sign Language which enabled them to communicate effectively with people who used the service. They had also undertaken training in infection control and fire safety. Staff learning needs were identified as part of their annual performance appraisal. All staff had received an appraisal last year and were completing pre-appraisal forms in advance of this years appraisal. The registered manager told us that no staff member could administer medication without having undergone appropriate training. All staff were observed giving medication several times before being judged competent. Staff confirmed to us they had undertaken medication training. Staff received individual supervision from their line manager. This took place every four to eight weeks and we saw that records were kept. The manager was described a 'very supportive' by staff. Staff were supported to perform their role effectively and had undertaken training in areas relevant to their role and professional development. The needs of people who used the service were met by competent staff. Page 11 of 16
Overall, we found that RNID Action on Hearing Loss Brondesbury Road was meeting this essential standard. Page 12 of 16
Outcome 16: Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision What the outcome says This is what people who use services should expect. People who use services: * Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety. What we found The provider is compliant with Outcome 16: Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision Our findings What people who use the service experienced and told us On this occasion we did not speak to people who use the service about this outcome area. Other evidence The quality of service provided was monitored using an electronic monitoring tool. We saw that audits had been carried out to assess and monitor the service provided. For example, we saw an environment and property audit had been carried out. An action plan had been put in place to address issues identified by the audit. There was evidence that the actions had been completed. A manager from another service had visited the home for three days and had given detailed feedback on their observations. The registered manager gave us examples of improvements made to the service following the visit. Satisfaction surveys had been sent to people using the service by the provider and inhouse surveys of people's views had also been conducted. Surveys were available in pictorial format which enabled everyone to understand and complete them. Feedback from people about the home was very positive. A 'complaints and grumbles' book had been put in place following feedback from people. Key workers also checked weekly with people to see whether they had any complaints or problems. One person had said they hated the colour of their room so they had been enabled to paint it a different colour. The complaints procedure was on display where people could see it. Page 13 of 16
The registered manager gave us examples of changes that had been made in response to incidents to ensure that people remained safe. All staff knew how to report incidents on the on-line system. The quality of service provided to people who used the service was regularly monitored. People who used the service were protected from the risks of unsafe care. Overall, we found that RNID Action on Hearing Loss Brondesbury Road was meeting this essential standard. Page 14 of 16
What is a review of compliance? By law, providers of certain adult social care and health 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 Care Quality Commission (CQC) has written guidance about what people who use services should experience when providers are meeting essential standards, called Guidance about compliance: Essential standards of quality and safety. CQC licenses services if they meet essential standards and will constantly monitor whether they continue to do so. We formally review services when we receive information that is of concern and as a result decide we need to check whether a service is still meeting one or more of the essential standards. We also formally review them at least every two years to check whether a service is meeting all of the essential standards in each of their locations. Our reviews include checking all available information and intelligence we hold about a provider. We may seek further information by contacting people who use services, public representative groups and organisations such as other regulators. We may also ask for further information from the provider and carry out a visit with direct observations of care. When making our judgements about whether services are meeting essential standards, we decide whether we need to take further regulatory action. This might include discussions with the provider about how they could improve. We only use this approach where issues can be resolved quickly, easily and where there is no immediate risk of serious harm to people. Where we have concerns that providers are not meeting essential standards, or where we judge that they are not going to keep meeting them, we may also set improvement actions or compliance actions, or take enforcement action: Improvement actions: These are actions a provider should take so that they maintain continuous compliance with essential standards. Where a provider is complying with essential standards, but we are concerned that they will not be able to maintain this, we ask them to send us a report describing the improvements they will make to enable them to do so. Compliance actions: These are actions a provider must take so that they achieve compliance with the essential standards. Where a provider is not meeting the essential standards but people are not at immediate risk of serious harm, we ask them to send us a report that says what they will do to make sure they comply. We monitor the implementation of action plans in these reports and, if necessary, take further action to make sure that essential standards are met. Enforcement action: These are actions we take using the criminal and/or civil procedures in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and relevant regulations. These enforcement powers are set out in the law and mean that we can take swift, targeted action where services are failing people. Page 15 of 16
Information for the reader Document purpose Author Audience Further copies from Copyright Review of compliance report Care Quality Commission The general public 03000 616161 / www.cqc.org.uk Copyright (2010) Care Quality Commission (CQC). This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part, free of charge, in any format or medium provided that it is not used for commercial gain. This consent is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and on proviso that it is not used in a derogatory manner or misleading context. The material should be acknowledged as CQC copyright, with the title and date of publication of the document specified. Care Quality Commission Website www.cqc.org.uk Telephone 03000 616161 Email address Postal address enquiries@cqc.org.uk Care Quality Commission Citygate Gallowgate Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4PA Page 16 of 16