Archived: Leyland House

The service provides care and support for up to three people with learning disabilities and or autistic spectrum conditions, and mental health conditions. Three people were being supported by the service at the time of our inspection.

When we inspected the service in April 2015, we found the provider needed to improve the staffing numbers so that people were supported safely. There was no evidence of how they dealt with behaviours that may challenge others and people’s risk assessments were not being updated. Staff training was not always provided in a timely manner and the training records were not up to date. There were not enough activities provided or opportunities for people to pursue their hobbies and interests. There was lack of accountability from senior staff, most records were not up to date and the manager had not sent us notifications about incidents that occurred at the home. We checked these areas at this inspection and we found they had made the required improvements. This meant that they now provided safe, effective, compassionate and high-quality care to people who used the service.

There was a registered manager in post, who was also the provider of the service. 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 safe because there were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on how potential risks to people could be minimised. There were systems in place to safeguard people and staff knew what to do if they suspected that a person was at risk of harm. The service now had risk assessments in place to safely manage behaviours that may challenge others. The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there was sufficient staff to support people safely.

Staff received regular supervision and they had been trained to meet people’s individual needs. They understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care being provided. Staff had received training to improve their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) so that people’s rights were protected.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted. They were supported to make choices about how they lived their lives and their views were respected and acted on. People had enough to eat and drink to maintain their health and wellbeing. They were also supported to access healthcare services when required.

People had care plans that took account of their individual needs, preferences, and choices. They were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests, and were active members of the community where they lived because they enjoyed social events with their neighbours.

The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people who used the service, their relatives and other professionals, and they acted on the comments received to improve the quality of the service.

The provider’s quality monitoring processes had been used effectively to drive improvements. The manager provided stable leadership and effective support to staff. They also promoted a caring culture within the service and staff were motivated to support people.

We checked to see if improvements had been made following our previous inspection on 2 October 2013 when the home was found to be non-compliant with three regulations including the care and welfare of people, the management of medicines and supporting staff.

Below is a summary of our findings.

Is the service safe?

We observed that overall people were kept safe. However we noted that there were not appropriate arrangements in place for the management of people's finances. Assessments had not been completed and staff were making decisions about how people "spent" their money.

Is the service effective?

We reviewed the care records for the three people who lived at the home. We found that detailed information was recorded in three files. These covered the various aspects of people's lives. However people who used the service had not had mental capacity assessments (MCA).

Is the service caring?

People were supported by staff who knew them well and were able to care for them in a personalised way. We saw that the support workers showed positive interaction with the people in their care.

Is the service responsive?

We observed the staff to be responsive. Throughout our inspection we noted that staff were aware of people's needs and responded quickly and appropriately when people required assistance, or in some cases reassurance.

Is the service well-led?

We found that there were a number of concerns noted, and these were discussed with the registered manager. Other information could not be located during our inspection.