Sidney Corob House is a residential home providing care for up to 32 predominantly older people with enduring mental health conditions. The home caters specifically for people of the Jewish faith and there were 30 people living at the home at the time of this inspection.

This inspection was unannounced which meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming. The inspection took place on Monday 9 January 2017. Our previous comprehensive inspection on 8 December 2014 found that the service was compliant with all of the regulations we examined.

At the time of our inspection a manager was employed at the service. This person was awaiting their interview for registration with CQC. 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.

Risks assessments were in place and were regularly being reviewed. Risk assessments covered potential risks associated with people’s day to day support needs, mental healthcare support, other healthcare conditions and any risks associated with daily living and other activities. Staff were aware of how to mitigate risks and instructions were clear about actions to be taken to reduce risks and how to respond if new risks emerged.

The service was diligent with carrying out staff background checks and recruitment procedures to ensure that staff were properly vetted before commencing work at the service.

Staff supervision and training was effective, staff reported that they were supported and staff appraisals did take place. The service provider showed us their plan to undertake the next round of staff appraisals from March 2017.

There were policies, procedures and information available in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected. The service was applying the principles of the MCA appropriately. Physical restrictions under DoLS were not applicable for anyone at the service at the time of this inspection.

We found that people’s health care needs were assessed and the service had specific health care action plans to ensure that these assessments improved the range of potential health care needs of people. Care was planned and delivered in a consistent way and the service had regular contact with community mental health services and other health and social care professionals. Information and guidance was provided to staff about what was expected of them when supporting people and the procedures used at the service were clear.

The nine people using the service who spoke with us all said they were consulted and that their views were listened to. People were confident about approaching the manager and staff to talk about the things that they wished to and people felt that there was honesty in the way the service communicated with them.

The service complied with the provider’s procedures to carry out regular audits of all aspects of the service. The provider carried out regular reviews of the service and sought people’s feedback on how the service operated.

At this inspection we found that the service met all of the regulations we looked at.

Sidney Corob House is a residential home providing care for up to 32 predominantly older people with enduring mental health conditions. The home caters specifically for people of the Jewish faith.

There were 29 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

This inspection was unannounced which meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming. The inspection took place on Monday 8th December 2014. Our previous inspection on 11th December 2013 found that the service was compliant with all areas that we inspected.

At the time of our inspection a registered manager was employed at the service, although this person had been away for eight weeks and had been replaced by an acting manager. 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.’

From our observations of interactions between staff and people using the service and from our conversations with a relative and health and social care professionals we found that people were usually satisfied with the service. People were confident about approaching the manager and staff to talk about the things that they wished to and people felt that there was openness in the way the service communicated with them.

We saw there were policies, procedures and information available in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected. We saw from the records we looked at that the service was applying these safeguards appropriately and making the necessary applications for assessments when these were required.

We found that people’s health care needs were assessed, and care was planned and delivered in a consistent way. People using the service had enduring long term mental health conditions and from the care plans we looked at we found that the information and guidance provided to staff was clear. Any risks associated with people’s care needs were assessed and plans were in place to minimise the risk as far as possible to keep people safe.

People were supported in ways that were most appropriate to their needs and known wishes. On the day we inspected we found that sufficient numbers of staff were available to meet people’s needs. When we looked at the staff rota we found this showed that suitable levels of staffing were also provided at other times of the day.

Staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to support people. They received training to enable them to understand people’s needs, to support people of the Jewish faith and to work in ways that were safe and protected people.

Social and daily activities provided suited people and met their individual needs. People’s preferences had been recorded and we saw that staff worked to ensure these preferences were respected.

People were able to complain or raise concerns if they needed to. We saw that where people had raised issues these were taken seriously and had been resolved appropriately. People could therefore feel confident that any concerns they had would be listened to. The provider also regularly reviewed the performance of the service to ensure that standards were maintained and improvements were made.

At this responsive inspection we sought to answer one of our five questions; Is the service responsive? This was due to a person using the service having contacted us twice in three months to complain about how the service supported them .

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with one of the management staff at the service and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service responsive?

The manager who we spoke with said that there was close liaison between placing authorities and community mental health service. From a sample of records we looked at we found that this communication had occurred for the person who had contacted us as well as other people using the service.

The person who had made contact with us to raise concerns was unavailable to speak with us during our visit. We spoke with 5 other people who used the service. One person told us that “I have lived here far too long.” When we asked the manager about this we were told that the person had lived at the home for a few years and was regularly asking to move into their own flat, which mental health services did not think was a possibility due to their support needs. Other people told us “I used to live on my own, it was so lonely but I am not alone here”, “I have been here a year, it’s all good so far” and “I can’t really say that anything is wrong, I just like being in my own room a lot.”

People told us they had been involved in discussions about their care and support needs. We saw that peoples signed consent had been obtained to provide care and share information with other care agencies. Staff we spoke with were aware of the importance of obtaining peoples consent to provide care to ensure their privacy and dignity were respected. Staff were observed providing support with compassion and respect. One person said ''I think the service here is better than good, it’s excellent.''

We observed that people were consulted about their likes and dislikes. Care was planned with people using the service to ensure their needs were understood and independence promoted. One person said ''I do everything, I do all my own laundry, I’m quite independent and even go out to the restaurant for meals sometimes.’’ We saw care files which showed that risk assessments balanced safety with the right of the person using the service to make choices taking into account their capacity to make those choices.

Medicines were stored and administered safely by staff trained in medicines management. We observed that people had their medicines at the times they needed them and in a safe way.

People’s health and welfare needs were provided by sufficient numbers of staff with the right knowledge and experience.

There were systems in place for gathering, recording and evaluating information about the quality and safety of care provided.

Sidney Corob House had thirty one residents at the time of our inspection. We spoke with many of them and received positive comments on the service and the staff. They told us they were involved in many activities in the home and in the community as well. People also had the opportunity to go to the Royal Albert Hall to watch a performance and some residents visited the Shard shortly after it was opened. We saw photographs about these and other trips, outings and that people celebrated religious festivals.

Staff told us that the home had a ‘very good team, we support each other and work together’. We spoke with the home’s new activity co-ordinator who managed to involve more and more people in the various activities in the home. A scientist visited the home and talked about astronomy on the day of our visit.

We found that people’s needs were assessed and care plans were created. The care plans and the related risk assessment were updated regularly. People were supported to attend medical appointments and their mental health reviews in order to meet people’s needs as safely as possible.

The people who use the service were very happy with the care and support they receive. People are enabled to maintain their way of life with the support of staff. They praised the staff for their support and dedication in caring for them.

People are involved in all aspects of their care and their social care needs are continuously being met.

We were told that people living at the home were aware of the complaints procedure and who to talk to if there was an issue.