Waterfield Supported Homes Limited – 23 Broadfield Road is a care home that provides services to up to seven people with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection, there were seven people using the service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

People remained safe at the service. Staff had received training on how to identify abuse and understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and reporting concerns.

Risks to people were identified and guidance was put in place on what action staff had to take to minimise harm. Staff understood the risks to each person and followed guidance to keep them safe. Systems and processes in place were sufficient to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm.

People received care from a sufficient number of staff to meet their needs. Staffing levels were reviewed when people’s needs changed and to support them with activities and to attend appointments. Appropriate recruitment procedures ensured people received care from staff vetted as suitable for their role.

People received their medicines as required. Medicines were stored securely and managed safely by staff assessed as competent to do so.

Trained staff who were supported in their role delivered people’s care. Staff received regular supervisions about how to deliver effective care and appraisals to identify training and development needs.

People were involved in planning their care. Staff understood people’s needs and provided care with kindness and compassion. People’s dignity and privacy were upheld at the service.

Staff had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and applied its principles when providing people’s care. People were supported to make their own decisions about their care. Best interest meetings were held to support people who were unable to consent or make particular decisions about their care.

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 knew how to make a complaint and were confident their concerns would be resolved. People’s views about the service were sought and their feedback used to develop the service.

Staff assessed people’s needs and care plans were developed to meet their individual needs and preferences. People enjoyed the food provided at the service and had choices on what they could eat and drink. People’s nutritional and dietary requirements were met. Staff supported people to maintain their health and to access healthcare services when needed.

The provider had effective systems in place to assess the quality of care provided. Regular checks and audits were carried out on the quality of care and safety of people and improvements were made when needed.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Waterfield Supported Homes Limited – 23 Broadfield Road is a care home that provides services to up to seven people with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection, there were seven people using the service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

People remained safe at the service. Staff had received training on how to identify abuse and understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and reporting concerns.

Risks to people were identified and guidance was put in place on what action staff had to take to minimise harm. Staff understood the risks to each person and followed guidance to keep them safe. Systems and processes in place were sufficient to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm.

People received care from a sufficient number of staff to meet their needs. Staffing levels were reviewed when people’s needs changed and to support them with activities and to attend appointments. Appropriate recruitment procedures ensured people received care from staff vetted as suitable for their role.

People received their medicines as required. Medicines were stored securely and managed safely by staff assessed as competent to do so.

Trained staff who were supported in their role delivered people’s care. Staff received regular supervisions about how to deliver effective care and appraisals to identify training and development needs.

People were involved in planning their care. Staff understood people’s needs and provided care with kindness and compassion. People’s dignity and privacy were upheld at the service.

Staff had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and applied its principles when providing people’s care. People were supported to make their own decisions about their care. Best interest meetings were held to support people who were unable to consent or make particular decisions about their care.

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 knew how to make a complaint and were confident their concerns would be resolved. People’s views about the service were sought and their feedback used to develop the service.

Staff assessed people’s needs and care plans were developed to meet their individual needs and preferences. People enjoyed the food provided at the service and had choices on what they could eat and drink. People’s nutritional and dietary requirements were met. Staff supported people to maintain their health and to access healthcare services when needed.

The provider had effective systems in place to assess the quality of care provided. Regular checks and audits were carried out on the quality of care and safety of people and improvements were made when needed.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

People told us they were consulted about their care and asked for their consent. We saw that staff respected people's right to refuse treatment, and they explained the potential risks of doing so. One person told us "things are really good. They look after me well".

We reviewed the care records for three of the people using the service. We found that each person had an up to date care plan and risk assessment in place.

Staff received annual training in safeguarding and they were able to demonstrate that they were aware of the signs of potential abuse and knew the procedures to follow.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

We reviewed the recruitment records for four staff. We saw that each record contained the information required in the regulations, including criminal record checks, proof of identify, references, a health declaration and the right, where appropriate, to work in the UK.

We found that the provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.

At our last inspection in January 2013 we found that some of the personal records for people using the service were not up to date. At this inspection we found that the records were accurate.

We carried out this inspection to see if the service had taken action to address the areas of non compliance we identified at our last inspection of 4 October 2012. At that inspection we found that people using the service were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not being maintained. The provider told us that all staff would be regularly supervised to ensure that weekly reviews between staff and residents were recorded accurately.

At this inspection on 9 January 2013, we found that there were still aspects of the service that were not meeting the required standard.

As this was a follow up to check on the non-compliance identified at our last inspection we did not speak with people using the service on this occasion.

During our inspection we spoke with two people using the service who told us that the home was a good home and the staff looked after them. One person we spoke with told us they helped staff to plan the menu. Another said that they liked going out for lunch with the staff and other people at the home. We saw staff were respectful and considerate towards the people they were caring for.

We spoke with the placement authority who had no concerns about the service and were positive about the way the home managed the complex needs of people placed there.

These views were confirmed by our inspection. However, we found that some of the provider’s records on the care and support provided were incomplete which may result in people being put at risk.