Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


26 St Barnabas Road, Reading.

26 St Barnabas Road in Reading is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs, caring for adults under 65 yrs and learning disabilities. The last inspection date here was 9th October 2019

26 St Barnabas Road is managed by Voyage 1 Limited who are also responsible for 289 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      26 St Barnabas Road
      Emmer Green
      Reading
      RG4 8RA
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01189461775
    Website:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-10-09
    Last Published 2017-03-22

Local Authority:

    Reading

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

27th January 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on 27 and 31 January 2017. This was an unannounced inspection completed by one inspector.

The home provides a residential service to people with a primary diagnosis of learning disabilities with a secondary health related issue. The service was operating at full occupancy with six males, some of whom have been at the service since it has opened. Registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, the home aims to support people to maintain their independence and increase their skills.

The home is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager was in place, who was employed under 12 months. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 previous inspection in March 2016 we found that the service needed to make improvements in the areas of safe, responsive and well-led. During this inspection we noted that the provider had made the necessary improvements in these areas.

The provider’s recruitment processes were robust ensuring appropriate people were employed at the service.

Communication with people had improved and was reflected in their activity and menu choices.

The registered manager had delegated many duties, freeing up time to complete monthly audits and review all paperwork related to the service.

Staff were aware of the necessity to report abuse or any safeguarding concerns if these were observed. Training records indicated that staff had undertaken all company mandatory training, and were rebooked on all refresher courses as required. Competency checks were completed to ensure staff were able to understand both theory and practice of the training received.

People were supported with their medicines by suitably trained, qualified and experienced staff. Medicines were managed safely and securely by using a monitored dosage system. This reduces the possibility of medicine error. Where a person required medicine on an as needed basis, guidance was available for staff to ensure this was appropriately administered. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) sheets showed that there had been no medicine errors and that as required medicines were not administered too frequently.

We observed good caring practice by the staff. People who could not make specific decisions for themselves had their legal rights protected. People’s care plans showed that when decisions had been made about their care, where they lacked capacity, these had been made in the person’s best interests. The provider was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The DoLS provide legal protection for vulnerable people who are, or may become, deprived of their liberty.

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.

People were provided support by a staff team who knew them well. Care plans and health care documents were reflective of people’s care needs.

The quality of the service was monitored regularly by the provider, and the operations manager. A thorough quality assurance audit was completed quarterly with an action plan being generated, and followed up on during identified timescales. Feedback was encouraged from people, visitors and stakeholders, with responses provided by the manager on how changes had been actioned.

15th March 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on 15 and 21 March 2016. This was an unannounced inspection completed by one inspector.

The home provides a residential service to people with a primary diagnosis of learning disabilities with a secondary health related issue. The service at present has one vacancy, with five males residing at the home, some since the home opened. Registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, the home aims to support people to maintain their independence and increase their skills.

The home is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager was in place, who was employed over 12 months ago. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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. We were informed during the inspection that the registered manager had resigned from his post and would be leaving the company by the end of March 2016. A recruitment drive had commenced to find a replacement manager. The deputy manager will act up in the interim and be supported by the operational manager.

Staff knew how to keep people safe by reporting concerns promptly through procedures that were made available to them. Training records indicated that staff had undertaken all company mandatory training, and were rebooked on all refresher courses as required. Competency checks were completed to ensure staff were able to understand both theory and practice of the training received. For example, medicine administration.

People were supported with their medicines by suitably trained, qualified and experienced staff. Medicines were managed safely and securely. Where a person required medicine on an as needed basis, guidance was available for staff to ensure this was appropriately administered. This was reflected by staff describing the protocol, and the Medication Administration Record (MAR) sheets showed proportionate usage.

We observed good caring practice by the staff. People who could not make specific decisions for themselves had their legal rights protected. People’s care plans showed that when decisions had been made about their care, where they lacked capacity, these had been made in the person’s best interests. The provider was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The DoLS provide legal protection for vulnerable people who are, or may become, deprived of their liberty.

People who use the service were not always kept safe. Appropriate measures had not been taken to ensure fit and proper persons were employed to support people. We found that not all staff recruitment files contained references, explained gaps in employment or had evidence of a check in relation to suitability to work with vulnerable people. This was a breach of Regulation 19, Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008, Regulated Activities (RA) 2014.

In one file we found that a person who needed specialist medicines with agreed guidelines by a medically qualified practitioner, had these written by the registered manager. Whilst there had been consultation with a relevant practitioner initially, this involvement was now out of date.

People were provided support by a staff team who knew them well. However, care plans and related support documents were not accurate or reflective of people’s changing health and care needs. There was insufficient evidence to illustrate people were being offered activities. We observed people being left alone for long periods of time, some falling asleep. This was a breach of Regulation 9 (HSCA) 2008, (RA) 2014, as the service was unable to illustrate personalised care was offered to all people using the service.

The quality of the service was monitored regularly by the provider, and the operations manager.

21st February 2014 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

At our last inspection on 7 August 2013, we identified concerns about a lack of adequate maintenance of the premises in several areas, including window and door locks, paintwork, floorings and maintenance of a communal bathroom. At this inspection we found the provider had taken appropriate action to ensure that all the maintenance issues we identified had been addressed.

We previously identified concerns about people’s personal records, because they were not being stored securely. At this inspection we found that records had been appropriately archived and were now stored securely within the home.

We spoke with the person managing the service on the day of our inspection. Throughout this report, we have referred to this person as the acting manager. The location did not have a registered manager at the time of our inspection.

7th August 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Staff were able to describe how they would seek people’s consent and what they would do if a person did not give their consent.

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Staff told us how they regularly reviewed plans of care and were knowledgeable of people's individual needs and how to meet those needs.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. We looked at the personnel records of three members of staff. The records showed evidence all of the relevant checks had been completed.

The provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed, but not always adequately maintained. Some areas of the premises had been maintained to a suitable standard. However, people who use the service, staff and visitors were not always protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises because there was inadequate maintenance in some areas of the home.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. We spoke with two members of staff. They confirmed they felt well supported by managers and they had enough training to enable them to meet the needs of the people they support. One member of staff said they felt “definitely well supported” by managers.

People’s personal records including medical records were accurate and fit for purpose. However, when we toured the premises as part of our inspection we noted people’s records being stored in an unlocked shed in the garden. There was a risk that people’s records would not remain confidential, because they were not being stored securely.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register.

20th March 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

People who used the service told us with support from the care staff they were able to take part in regular healthy activities such as visiting the local leisure centre, going to horse riding sessions and being able to go out cycling. People also told us they were able to organise outings to the cinema and were often supported to eat out at local restaurants. We sought people’s opinions about their daily activities and people told us that they were able to choose what time they wanted to get up or go to bed and were free to choose when they wanted to have meals throughout the day. One person told us “I choose what food I eat and I go to the shops to buy my own food with support from the care staff.” The other person told us “I had a lay in today as this is the only day I do not go out during the week. “

People told us that staff supported them with their social and heath care needs, for example one person told us “I like to go horse riding every week and staff go with me to help me.” People we spoke to told us they felt safe and well looked after by staff and described relationships with the staff as good. One person told us “I like it here and all the staff treat me well.”

Staff told us the training had helped them to identify indicators of abuse and know what action should be taken as a result.

7th March 2012 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

People told us that they were able to choose when to rise and retire and when to have a bath or shower.

People said that staff respected their religious beliefs. Staff made arrangements for them to attend church service on a Sunday.

People told us that staff enabled them to be part of the community. Staff accompanied them on shopping trips. Some people said that they regularly went on outings to the cinema, the leisure centre and to the local pub.

People said that the staff supported them with their social and health care needs. They said that they were registered with a general practitioner (GP), chiropodist and dentist.

People told us that they felt safe and well looked after by staff. They described their relationship with staff as good.

 

 

Latest Additions: