Our House

Staff understood people's individual needs and communication preferences. People approached staff for help without hesitation.

“People approached staff for support without hesitation and staff responded positively to people's requests.” from the report

People were supported to make choices and were offered support and consent before assistance was provided.

“People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests.” from the report

Staff worked with healthcare professionals and helped people access healthcare when needed.

“People had been supported to access health care services when needed.” from the report

The provider responded to feedback by cleaning the home, making it warmer and adding risk assessments.

“By the second day of the inspection the service had been cleaned, was noticeably warmer and additional risk assessments had been developed.” from the report

Inspectors found unresolved fire service recommendations, wedged-open fire doors, damaged flooring and other safety issues. The home was also dirty and cold on the first inspection day.

“Fire doors were propped open with wedges, and flooring was in need of replacement and presented trip hazards in the service's communal spaces.” from the report

Specific risks linked to people's behaviours and one person's ingestion of non-food materials had not been assessed or properly reduced before the inspection.

“The provider failed to ensure risks in relation to people's known care and support needs were adequately mitigated.” from the report

There were repeated periods with only three daytime staff, night shifts were sometimes covered by day staff sleeping in, and a third of staff had completed less than half of the required training.

“The reduced staffing levels at Our House were restricting people's opportunities to leave the service and access the community.” from the report

Some necessary checks had not been completed. There was no recruitment information for one person and robust references were not recorded for two recently recruited staff.

“The provider had not completed necessary pre-employment checks.” from the report

Medicine administration records were not consistently signed or accurately completed. Records about one varying-dose medicine contradicted each other.

“Medicine Administration Records (MARs) had not been consistently completed, staff had not always signed the MAR to show medicines had been administered as prescribed.” from the report

The provider's audits had not picked up important safety and premises problems. Inspectors also found that privacy and dignity were not always respected.

“The provider's quality assurance systems were not sufficiently robust.” from the report