Archived: RNID Action on Hearing Loss 60 Olive Lane

RNID Action on Hearing Loss 60 Olive Lane is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to eight people. At the time of the inspection seven people were living in the home. People lived with a profound hearing impairment and other needs. These included needs relating to old age, poor mobility, dementia, learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder and mental health conditions.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People felt safe and staff had good knowledge of safeguarding processes. There were enough staff to support people safely. Care plan and risk assessments were up to date and reviewed regularly. People received their medicines as prescribed.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. People felt well supported. People were listened to. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained.

People’s communication needs were met. People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed. People’s personal preferences were identified in their care plans. People were supported to maintain relationships.

Systems were effective for monitoring the quality and safety of the services provided. There was good involvement with community professionals. People and relatives were involved in decisions about their care.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 31 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At our last inspection in November 2015 the service was rated overall as good but required improvement in one of the questions we ask, Is the service safe? This was because although overall medicines were managed adequately some additional safeguards were needed to enhance safety and ensure people’s health and wellbeing. Staffing levels also required a review to ensure that people would be supported appropriately and safely. During this, our most recent inspection, we found that these areas had been improved upon.

The provider is registered to accommodate and deliver personal care to eight people. Eight people lived at the home at the time of our inspection. People lived with a profound hearing impairment and/or had other needs. These included needs relating to old age, poor mobility, dementia and mental health conditions.

The manager was registered with us as is required by law. 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.

Staff were available to keep people safe, to allow care and support to be provided flexibly and to meet all people’s needs. Medicine systems demonstrated safety and confirmed that people had been given their medicines as they had been prescribed. Staff knew the procedures they should follow to ensure the risk of harm and/or abuse was reduced. Recruitment processes ensured that unsuitable staff were not employed.

Staff had received the training they required to give them the knowledge they needed to support people safely. Staff knew that people must receive care in line with their best interests and not be unlawfully restricted. People were encouraged to make decisions about their care. The staff supported people appropriately with their nutritional needs. Meal options were offered to ensure that people’s food and drink preferences were catered for. Input from external healthcare professionals was secured to meet people’s healthcare needs.

The provider ensured a homely friendly atmosphere within the service. People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. People were treated with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to make decisions about their care and support and their independence was promoted. People could receive their visitors at any time.

Systems were in place for people and their relatives to raise their concerns or complaints if they had a need to. People could attend religious services of their choice if they wished to. People accessed a range of leisure activities on a regular basis.

People, relatives and staff felt that the quality of service was good. The registered manager had been in post for 15 years and that promoted consistency of management. The registered manager and provider undertook regular audits to determine shortfalls or to see if changes or improvements were needed.

At our last inspection in January 2014 the provider was meeting all of the regulations that we assessed.

The provider is registered to accommodate and deliver personal care to eight people. Seven people lived at the home at the time of our inspection. All people lived with a profound hearing impairment and also had a varied range of other needs. These included needs relating to old age, poor mobility, dementia and mental health conditions.

The manager was registered with us as is required by law. 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.

Staff were available to keep people safe but there was not always enough staff to allow care and support to be provided flexibly, to consistently meet all people’s needs.

Medicine systems demonstrated safety and confirmed that people had been given their medicines as they had been prescribed. However, some changes and new safeguards were needed to enhance safety and ensure people’s health and wellbeing.

Staff had received the training they required to equip them with the skills they needed to communicate with, and support, the people in their care.

Staff received induction and the day to day support they needed equip them with the knowledge and direction to undertake their job roles.

Staff knew the procedures they should follow to ensure the risk of harm and/or abuse was reduced.

Recruitment processes mostly ensured that unsuitable staff were not employed.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This ensured that people received care in line with their best interests and would not be unlawfully restricted.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. People were encouraged to make decisions about their care and support.

Staff supported people with their nutrition and dietary needs to promote their good health.

All people received assessments and/or treatment when it was needed from a range of health care and social care professionals which helped to promote their health and well-being.

Systems were in place for people and their relatives to raise their concerns or complaints.

People, relatives and staff felt that the quality of service was good. The management of the service was stable. The registered manager and provider undertook regular audits to determine shortfalls or to see if changes or improvements were needed.

We saw that care plans were comprehensive. People's needs had been individually assessed. One relative told us, 'All X's welfare, communication and social needs are taken care of'. Records showed care was planned in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. One person told us, 'Staff look after me'.

People and relatives we spoke with said they felt able to tell staff if they were unhappy or worried. We found that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse.

We sampled four staff files and found that appropriate checks had been undertaken in regard to staff working in the service. The people and relatives we spoke with were very complimentary about the staff caring for them. One relative told us, 'Staff are brilliant; I never have to worry as they care for X perfectly'.

We saw quality monitoring programmes in place, which included people giving feedback about their care, support and treatment. This provided a good overview of the quality of the service provided.

We looked at records and these were easily accessible, securely stored and fit for purpose.

People told us that they were happy and that the care that they received was very good. One said, 'It's good here, the staff are nice and really kind'.

We saw that staff treated people with respect and supported them in a friendly and engaging manner that put them at ease. One person said, 'They ask me what I would like to do'.

People's needs were assessed and care and support were planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We spoke with four members of staff who were aware of people's specific needs. One relative said, 'It's the best care they have ever had'.

The building had a suitable design and layout for the people who used it. We saw that the home was clean, tidy and in a good state of repair and d'cor. Furnishings were comfortable and modern and suitable for the needs of people.

Staff were well supervised and had completed all mandatory training required as well as some more specialist courses which allowed them to care more effectively for people with specific needs.

Nobody we spoke with had any complaint to make, nor had they made one previously. All were more than complimentary about the service. They told us they knew how to make a complaint should the need arise. The people we spoke with told us that they felt confident to raise any complaint either directly with a staff member or with the manager.