What the CQC found at 60 Cobham Road

Staff supported people to make day-to-day choices and encouraged them to live as independently as possible. Families were involved in care decisions.

“People were provided with a choice in their day-to-day decision-making and families were involved in people's care.” from the report

Inspectors saw kind interactions. People said staff respected their privacy, dignity and wishes.

“We observed interactions between people who used the service and staff. Interactions were kind and staff knew people's preferences.” from the report

Care records included people’s communication needs, preferences, health information and what a good day looked like. People were involved in reviewing their care.

“Care records were personalised and included information such as autism assessments, what a good day looks like and how to support the individual in line with their wishes.” from the report

Staff generally followed risk assessments and supported people with choking risks, mobility needs and emotional distress. Fire checks and emergency plans were in place.

“We observed staff supporting people in line with their risk assessments.” from the report

There had been previous delays in getting medical advice. Inspectors found that the home was improving this, but the new approach was not yet fully established.

“This is an area that needs to be improved. The provider needs to ensure that staff are consistently seeking medical attention in a timely way.” from the report

Some medicines records did not consistently show allergies, directions for medicines given when needed or where skin medicines should be applied. The provider corrected the issues during the inspection.

“Medication administration records (MARs), care plans and medicines profiles were not always consistently recorded to reflect people's medical information across different documentation.” from the report

The provider’s audits did not always find shortfalls, including medicines documentation. This reduced the chance of problems being identified early.

“The provider's monitoring systems were not always effective in identifying and acting on some of the shortfalls we found during this inspection.” from the report

Although oral care assessments were in place, they were not always followed. The report also describes a previous case where a person was not receiving oral care after declining it.

“Care plans included steps to take to ensure people had regular access to a dentist and were following good oral care guidelines, however this had not always been followed.” from the report

Feedback about activities was mixed. The provider recognised that people were not always supported to join in activities and had recruited an activities staff member during the inspection.

“Whilst there had been no activities staff at the service previously, the provider had completed the recruitment of an activities staff member who started during our inspection.” from the report