Integra Supported Housing received an overall Good rating across all five key questions at its July 2016 inspection, with people feeling safe, well-supported and respected. Minor shortfalls were identified in falls prevention training, inconsistent care planning documentation, and absence of hospital passports, all of which the registered manager agreed to address promptly.
Concerns (5)
moderate
Record keeping
: “lifestyle plans were not always being completed and paperwork was not the same across all files”
moderateCare planning: “the process for completing reviews was not consistent as there was no appropriate review paperwork being used”
moderateStaff training: “they were not receiving any training in falls prevention...One member of the care staff said they would help the person up. This could lead to further injury”
minorRecord keeping: “not all care staff recruited were consistently supplying a full work history when completing the application form”
minorGovernance: “the registered manager did not have in place health action plans or hospital passports to ensure in an emergency that health care professionals would have access”
Strengths
· People felt safe and care staff could identify and report abuse appropriately with relevant safeguarding referrals made
· Medicines were administered safely with MAR records, competency checks, and two-staff administration of controlled drugs
· Care staff received regular supervision, annual appraisals, and access to both essential and specialist training
· People's privacy, dignity and independence were consistently respected by friendly and caring staff
· Robust complaints process in place with trend monitoring and multiple accessible formats
Integra Supported Housing received an overall rating of Good across all five key questions at its July 2019 inspection, with four people with learning disabilities receiving personalised, safe and effective care in their own homes. Minor gaps were noted around AIS legislation awareness, display of CQC ratings on the provider website, and the absence of documented end-of-life care wishes, all of which were being addressed.
Concerns (3)
minorGovernance: “It is a legal requirement that the overall rating from our last inspection is displayed...on the provider's website. We found our rating was displayed within the provider's office location, however there was no evidence of this on the provider's website.”
minorCommunication with families: “The registered manager and care staff were not aware of the legislation, but this did not impact how information was shared.”
minorEnd-of-life care: “While people's views were not reflected as to their wishes in providing end of life care, their wishes were reflected upon death.”
Strengths
· People felt safe with staff and safeguarding systems were well understood by care staff.
· Risk assessments were in place and a dedicated risk manager was appointed to ensure all risks were identified and managed.
· Robust recruitment processes including DBS checks and references ensured suitable staff were employed.
· Medicines were administered safely with annual refresher training and competency checks for care staff.
· Care staff received regular supervision, appraisals, team meetings and role-specific training (e.g. diabetes, epilepsy, falls prevention).