The inspection took place on 22 June 2018. The inspection was carried out by one inspector and was unannounced. 9-10 Jutland Place provides accommodation, care and support for a maximum of eight adults with learning disabilities. There were seven people living at the home at the time of our inspection.
9-10 Jutland Place 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.
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.
There was a registered manager in post who was on leave 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At our last inspection in January 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
Why the service is rated good:
There were always enough staff available to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staff understood their responsibilities regarding keeping people safe from abuse and knew how to report any concerns they had. The provider’s recruitment procedures helped ensure that only suitable staff were employed.
Staff had assessed the risks people faced and implemented measures to keep them as safe as possible whilst living the life they chose. There were plans in place to ensure that people would continue to receive their care in the event of an emergency. Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored. Medicines were stored, managed and administered safely. Staff kept the home clean and hygienic and maintained appropriate standards of infection control.
Staff had the training and support they needed to do their jobs. This meant they had the skills and knowledge to provide effective care. Staff had opportunities to discuss their professional development and to achieve further, relevant qualifications.
People’s needs had been assessed to ensure staff had the skills to provide their care. Staff supported people to stay healthy and to obtain treatment if they needed it. Information about people’s needs had been recorded for medical staff should the person require admission to hospital. People’s needs were met by the layout and design of the premises.
Restrictions were only imposed upon people where these were authorised and necessary to keep them safe. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. If a person lacked capacity to make a decision, relevant people had been involved in the decision-making process to ensure the outcome reflected the person’s best interests.
People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and any dietary needs recorded in their care plans. Risk assessments had been carried out to identify any risks related to eating and drinking. People were involved in choosing the menu. Staff struck an appropriate balance between enabling choice and promoting a balanced diet.
People received their care from kind and caring staff with whom they had established positive relationships. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their privacy and dignity. Confidential information was stored securely and only accessible to appropriate people. People were supported to maintain relationships with their friends and families. Staff encouraged people to be independent and to be involved in the day-to-day life of the home.
Care and support was personalised to meet people’s individual needs. People’s needs and wishes were reviewed regularly and relatives’ contributions to reviews were encouraged and valued. People had opportunities to take part in activities and to be involved in their local community. There were appropriate procedures for managing complaints and people were confident any concerns they had would be taken seriously.
The registered manager provided good leadership for the service and led by example in their approach and practice. Staff valued the support provided by the registered manager and worked well as a team. There was an open culture at the home in which people, relatives and staff felt able to speak up and share their views.
Quality monitoring systems were effective in ensuring that people received safe, well-planned care. Key areas of the service were audited regularly and any actions needed to improve included in the home’s continuous improvement plan. The registered manager and staff had developed effective relationships with professionals involved in people’s care to ensure they received the care they needed.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.