This inspection took place on 08, 09 and 21 January 2019 and was unannounced. We completed a final unannounced inspection day on 21 January 2019 to check the provider had taken steps to safely manage risks we had identified during the first two days of our inspection. At the last inspection completed in January 2018 we rated this location as ‘requires improvement’. We also identified two breaches of regulation around the provision of safe care and treatment and the overall governance and management of the service. At this inspection we found the quality of care had further deteriorated and this service was now rated as ‘inadequate’. We found the provider remained in breach of the regulations identified at the prior inspection. Two further breaches were identified around safeguarding people and the need for consent.

Selborne House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Selborne House accommodates up to 15 people with learning disabilities in one building that contains two separate units. Many of the people living at the service were also diagnosed with mental health conditions and had complex support needs.

The care service had not been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were exposed to the risk of serious harm due to the provider’s failure to identify key risks and to take appropriate action to mitigate against these risks. Where safeguarding concerns had arisen these were also not always identified, reported and appropriate action taken to protect people. Care staff were not always deployed effectively or as outlined in their people’s plans. People were not always protected by robust infection control practices.

The provider had failed to ensure that robust governance and quality assurance systems were in place. The provider’s own systems had not identified the level of risk we found people were exposed to. Where people’s care and support did not meet their individual needs this had not been identified and corrective action had not been taken.

People’s rights were not upheld by the effective applicaton of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where people did not have capacity to provide consent, decisions had not always been made in their best interests in line with the Act.

People were supported by a committed staff team although they had not always been equipped with the skills needed to manage risk effectively. People’s health needs were not always monitored in line with their needs. Concerns were not always proactively identified to enable the appropriate intervention from healthcare professionals.

People enjoyed the food they ate and were encouraged to prepare meals independently wherever possible. People received their medicines as prescribed.

People were not consistently supported in a kind, caring and compassionate way. People’s independence was promoted and their privacy and dignity respected.

People’s care and support did not always meet their needs. People’s care plans were not updated on a regular basis with the full involvement of the person.

People were supported to access a range of leisure opportunities and community activities. People and external professionals did not a

This inspection took place on 23, 29 and 31 January 2018. The first day was an unannounced visit and the second and third days were announced to enable us to review records and speak with the manager, locality manager and the nominated individual.

We had previously inspected this service on 28 November and 01 December 2016. We found that people were not consistently receiving a good or a safe service. We found the provider was not meeting all of the legal regulations, and we used our enforcement powers to ensure this situation improved.

In June 2017 the provider was acquired in its entirety by CareTech. On 12 and 13 July 2017 we undertook a further inspection to check on the progress that had been made by the provider to meet the legal requirements. We identified that some improvements had occurred, however these had not been adequate to ensure that people all received a safe, quality service, or to achieve compliance with the legal requirements. We found the provider was in continued breach of Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Following this inspection we imposed conditions on to the provider’s registration that placed a restriction on admissions to the home and also required the provider to submit monthly reports to us to evidence how they were providing effective oversight and governance of the home.

At this most recent inspection we found the provider had made some improvements and was no longer in breach of Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. However, they remained in continued breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and we also identified a new breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Further improvements were required to ensure people consistently received safe, effective, caring support.

Selborne House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Selborne House is registered to provide accommodation for up to 15 people who have a learning disability. On the day of the inspection there were 13 people living at the home. The home is divided in to two areas called Ascot and Beverly.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. The provider told us they were in the process of evaluating how the service worked for people living there and was considering making improvements to the layout and design of the building in order to better meet people’s needs.

There was a registered manager in post however they had recently submitted an application to remove their registration. In their absence a new manager had been appointed in December 2017 who took responsibility for the day to day management of the home. They told us they planned to submit an application to become registered manager of Selborne House. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Although improvements had been made in relation to people being kept safe further action was required to ensure risks were adequately assessed and people receive support t

Selborne House is a care home for up to fifteen people who have a learning disability. At the time of our inspection thirteen people were living at this home. The home is split into two areas, called Ascot and Beverley.

We last inspected this service on 28 November and 01 December 2016. We found that people were not consistently receiving a good or a safe service. We found the provider was not meeting all of the legal regulations, and we used our enforcement powers to ensure this situation improved. At this inspection, we identified that some improvements had occurred, however these had not been adequate to ensure that people all received a safe, quality service, or to achieve compliance with the legal requirements.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

Changes had been made to the systems used to audit the safety and quality of the service however these were still not effective. They had failed to ensure that all of the improvements needed were acted upon. The leadership of the service had not ensured that people lived in a home with a positive, empowering culture. People did not always receive an individual service that was respectful and which upheld their dignity. Action that the registered manager and registered provider had told us they would take to improve the service and to comply with the requirements of the law had not all been completed within the timescales agreed. The home remained in breach of two regulations and they had not increased their rating from Requires Improvement. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the end of this report.

While this inspection identified that improvements had been made to people's safety, we found that people were not consistently provided with a safe service. Risks people faced had not all been effectively managed, and reports of incidents had not always been used to review and change the support people received. Effective plans to reduce the risks that people presented to themselves and to others had not all been managed well. We have made a recommendation that professional, published guidance on the use of physical interventions is obtained. The management of medicines had improved, and our inspection confirmed that people were receiving their medicines as prescribed. Recruitment practices had improved, and people were now supported by staff that had been subject to robust checks before starting work.

The formal systems in place to ensure that restrictions to people's liberty were identified, and the required applications made to the supervisory body were good. However the knowledge of staff providing direct care about the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) would not ensure people would be supported consistently or safely. This was brought to the attention of the registered provider at our last inspection, and the necessary improvements had not occurred.

The culture of the home was not consistently enabling and did not promote people's independence or involvement. There were limited opportunities for people to pursue hobbies and activities that were of interest to them, and which would reduce the risks associated with social isolation. The care and support provided was not always respectful and did not always uphold people's dignity. This was brought to the attention of the registered provider at our last inspection, and the improvements required had not been undertaken.

People were supported to see a wide range of health professionals and to eat and drink adequate amounts to maintain good health. Not all care needs had been effectively planned.

Peop

We inspected Selborne House on 28 November and 01December 2016 and our inspection was unannounced. At our last inspection in April 2015 we found that the provider was meeting all the regulations we assessed. The local authority had shared some concerns with us about the service and the safeguarding of people so we brought forward our inspection of this service.

Selborne Houses provides accommodation and personal care for 15 adults who have a learning disability. There were 13 people living at the service when we inspected. The home is split into two separate areas called Ascot unit and Beverley unit.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.’

The systems in place to audit the quality of the service were not effective because they failed to identify where improvements were needed. The service was not always led in a way that promoted the wellbeing and safety of the people who lived at Selborne House, recruitment practice did not ensure that only staff that were suitable were recruited, medicine management did not ensure people were protected from risks associated with medicine management and care was not always provided in a way that was person centred. Improvements were needed to ensure the home complied with the regulations. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the end of this report. Full information about CQC's regulatory response to any concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Medicines were not always managed effectively to reduce the risks associated with them. The provider’s recruitment procedures were not always implemented effectively to ensure that staff were recruited safely. Risk to people were not always well managed and the environment was not always maintained in a way that ensured people’s safety.

People told us that they felt safe and staff we spoke with were confident that they could identify signs of abuse and would know where to report any concerns. Staff had received some training however further training was needed. Staff lacked an understanding of what Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) meant in practice for the people they supported, which showed that systems were not in place to show that staff training was effective.

People were not always involved in decisions about their care and opportunities to promote people’s independence and life skills were not always acted upon by staff. People were not always supported to pursue hobbies and activities that were of interest to them. People were supported to access healthcare professionals and had access to food and drink.

Visitors were welcomed to the service and the provider had a system in place for responding to people’s concerns and complaints. However, systems were not in place to ensure that the views of the people that lived at the service were sought and acted upon to influence how care was provided.

This inspection took place on 7 April 2015 and was unannounced.

Selborne House is a privately owned care home. The home provides accommodation and personal care for up 15 adults who have a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. The home is split into two separate areas called Ascot and Beverley. At the time of our inspection there were 11 people living there.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People that lived at the home and relatives spoken with told us that people received a safe service. Staff knew how to reduce the risk of harm to people from abuse and unsafe practice, and had received appropriate training to help them to do so. The risk of harm to people receiving a service was assessed and managed appropriately; this ensured that people received care and support in a safe way. Where people required support with taking their medication, there were procedures in place to ensure this was done safely and people told us they received their medication as prescribed by their doctor.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs. Staff were suitably recruited, trained and supported to ensure they cared for people. The provider was taking the correct action to protect people’s rights, but not all staff were aware of how to fully protect the rights of people.

Staff were caring and treated people with respect and dignity. People’s independence was respected and promoted. People’s health and personal care needs were met and they were able to choose what they ate and drank. People pursued a range of social and leisure activities of their choice. People could speak with staff about their concerns and they would be listened to and have their concerns addressed.

The service was well managed. The provider had internal quality assurance systems to monitor the care and support people received, to ensure it was of good standard.

During our inspection we looked at information to help us gather evidence about the quality of care and support people that lived at the home received. The registered manager told us that 15 people lived at the home at the time of our inspection.

We spoke with one person that lived there and observed how other people were supported by staff. This was because with the exception of one other person, who did not communicate verbally everyone else had gone out for the day. We spoke with two relatives, a health care professional and the local authority that commissions a service for the provider.

We also spoke with the registered manager and two team leaders that were on duty. Our conversations with people helped us to answer our five questions: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? and, Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our findings during the inspection.

The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.

Is the service safe?

All of the relatives spoken with told us that they felt that the care provided was safe. One relative told us, “I am happy with the care X receives and she is safe there.”

We saw that people’s care was planned and any risks associated with providing the care was assessed and managed appropriately.

Whilst we saw that the environment within the home was maintained to ensure it was safe. We found that not all areas of the premises were suitable maintained for people to use.

We saw that there were appropriate numbers of staff to meet the needs of people that lived at the home. Relatives spoken with had no concerns about the staffing at the home. A relative told us, “There is continuity of staff at the moment.”

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and the staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

All records that we looked at were clear up to date and maintained so as to ensure that people received a safe service.

Where there had been issue about staff conduct the provider had taken appropriate action that ensured that people were safe.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care services. We saw that where it was necessary the home followed appropriate procedures under these safeguards to ensure that people’s rights were protected and they were safe.

Is the service effective?

All of the people and their relatives spoken with told us that they were receiving the care that they needed.

On the day of our inspection all but two people were going out to do activities in the community. We spoke with the one person who told us that they went out when they wanted to. A relative told us, “They do take X out shopping.”

We saw that the home sought the views of people that lived there and their relatives and staff to help in improving the care provided. We saw that meetings were held with people that lived at the home, so that they were involved in making decisions about the day to day management of the home and things that affected them.

Care plans were detailed and kept under regular review, so that staff had up to date information on how to care for people.

We saw that where people needed independent support to help them make life changing decisions staff supported them to access advocacy services.

Health information was detailed so that staff had the information they needed to support people safely.

Is the service caring?

All of the people and their relatives spoken with told us that they felt that the service was caring. A relative told us, “The staff are caring.”

We walked around the home and watched to see how staff treated people. We saw good interactions between people and staff. We saw one person talking to staff about a meeting that was arranged with their social worker. We saw that the staff member patiently explained when the meeting was to take place.

We saw that people were dressed in clothing appropriate to their age, gender and the weather. We saw that everyone looked well groomed before they went out for the day.

Is the service responsive?

Relatives spoken with said they visited the home whenever they wanted to. A relative told us, “When I visit, I visit unannounced and have never had any concerns.”

We saw that clear procedures were in place for handling complaints and concerns. Complaint records that we sampled were thoroughly investigated.

We saw from care records looked at that the home involved other professionals in supporting people’s care as required. A health care professional told us, “They work well with us and have acted on advice given. They have managed incidents fairly well.”

Is the service well led?

All the people and their relatives that we spoke with had no concerns about the service. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. Incidents and accidents were analysed and handled effectively. People were confident that their concerns would be listened to and investigated.

There were reporting procedures in place to enable the provider to have an overview of how the home was being managed.

We saw that the home had a staffing structure that enabled the service to be managed appropriately. This included a manager that was registered with us and was responsible for the day to day running of the service. People and their relatives were consulted about the quality of service they received. We saw that comments and concerns were analysed and improvements were put in place where they had been identified. All staff spoken with said they thought that the home was well managed.

There were 15 people living there on the day of our inspection. We spoke with four people living there, six members of staff and the manager.

Staff referred people to health professionals for advice where needed to meet their healthcare needs.

Staff did not always support people who had complex needs to ensure their dignity and wellbeing which meant that some people's needs were not always met.

Systems were in place to ensure that people living at the home were safeguarded from harm.

People had been given their medicines as they had been prescribed by their doctor to ensure their health and wellbeing.

Recruitment processes were robust which meant that suitable staff were employed to work with people living there to ensure their safety. One person said, “I can talk to the staff, they are okay.”

People were asked for their views about the home and audits of the quality of care that people received were completed. One person said, "Staff give me choices, they explain them to me and any risks that may be involved with making them."

We received information of concern which indicated that people living at the home did not have enough food to eat, so we did an inspection to check that the provider was compliant with the regulations. During the inspection people told us that they enjoyed their food and had enough to eat. We saw that people were able to choose what they wanted to eat and were supported to eat and drink. We saw that enough food was purchased to ensure that people had enough to eat and drink.

We conducted this responsive inspection in order to check what actions the provider had taken following our last inspection to ensure that they were complaint with the regulations. During the inspection we looked at records and spoke with the manager.

At our inspection on 20 June 2012 we saw that people that lived at the home gave consent to the day to day care that they received. However we found that the provider did not act fully in accordance with the legislation where people lacked capacity to make informed decisions about their care. During this visit we found that the provider had put in place appropriate systems to address this shortfall and to ensure that people’s rights were protected.

There were 15 people living at the home at the time of our inspection. On the day of our inspection a number of people who lived there were out for the day. Throughout the day we spoke with three people who lived at the home, three support workers, and two of the managers.

People living at the home told us they were happy living there. People said they were able to choose what they wanted to eat and do during the day. One person said, “I chose the colours for my room and I have just had a new bed, which is very comfortable.” We found that people’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

We found that where people lacked capacity to agree their care the provider was not acting in accordance with the with legal requirements.

People told us they were supported to maintain their independence. One person told us: “I can do some things for myself, but I sometimes get help from the staff if I need it.”

People told us they were treated well by the staff and we saw that they were safe in their environment. We found that staff knew how to ensure that people were safe from abuse and neglect.

We found that staff received the training and support they needed to support the people they cared for.

The provider had systems in place to listen to and act on people’s concerns and complaints. We saw that there were systems in place to monitor the service that people received.

When we visited, some people who lived there were on holiday. This meant that we were not able to speak with all of the people at the home.

The majority of people we spoke with told us they were happy living there. One person told us that they did not get bored at the home as there was lots to do, another person told us about a recent holiday they had been on with care workers. They told us they had enjoyed it. One person told us that they did not like living at the home, but they explained that this was because they would rather be living in their own home.

During our visit we spent time observing staff interactions with people. We saw that staff were kind, respectful and unhurried. They gave support with personal care in ways that respected people’s dignity and privacy.

People who lived at the home told us they were happy with the food. One person told us ‘’The food is nice’’, another person told us ‘’I get a choice of food.’’

We spoke with people who lived at the home about the care workers. People told us they were happy. One person told us ‘’The staff look after me’’, another person told us ‘’Staff here are alright.’’