Slough learning disability home told to improve after failing safety and care standards
Seymour Road, Slough. Photo via Google
A Slough care home supporting people with learning disabilities/ autism is in breach of legal regulations – and has been given a ‘Requires improvement’ rating.
Seymour House on Seymour Road was assessed in April due to concerns about people’s care, risks, medicine, staffing and governance oversight at the service.
The provider was in breach of the legal regulations regarding the safety of premises and equipment – as well as five other matters.
These were: need for consent, risk management, staff recruitment, person-centred care, and good governance.
“The provider had not followed their own policies or best practice guidance to effectively assess, monitor and mitigate any risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of people,” wrote the inspector from the CQC.
This included ‘not using safe recruitment procedures’ to employ staff and not ensuring premises and equipment were safe to use including fire safety and medicines records keeping.
The provider needed to review and improve how staff's training needs and skills were managed to meet specific needs.
Staff did not always support people to take part in meaningful activities to achieve their aspirations and goals, nor ensure people could pursue their interests in their area with people who had shared interests.
“Staff did not always have the right knowledge and skills to encourage and enable people to take positive risks, respond with kindness and understand individual needs,” the CQC wrote.
People were not always supported by staff who understood their different range of needs or sensitivities.
The provider did not ensure staff carrying out capacity assessments and best interest decisions were knowledgeable and skilful in this area.
Moreover, the CQC ‘was not always ensured’ that there was a transparent rather than ‘closed’ culture in the workforce.
People's experience of this service
The CQC spoke to three people using the service and two relatives during its site visit.
“While relatives expressed that they were generally happy with their family members’ care, our assessment found some elements of care did not always meet the expected standards,” they wrote.
People were not always supported to have choice and control of their lives.
They were not always supported by staff or the provider to express their views and to be involved in decisions about their care.
Staff did not always communicate with people in ways that met their needs.
The provider sought some feedback from people ‘but there was no real structure’ to demonstrate how it was used effectively to improve the service.
The CQC did not always observe people receiving personalised care responsive to their needs.
For example, people were supported to eat and drink however they did not always have full control and choice regarding snacks and drinks.
Staff ‘did not always focus on people's strengths,’ the CQC wrote.
They did not always promote what people could do so that they had a fulfilling and meaningful life.
“We observed at times [that] staff did not always speak to people politely and did not give them time to respond and express their wishes,” said the CQC.
Seymour House had not responded to a request for comment at the time of going to press.
