You are here

SENSE - 21a and 21b Johnson Avenue Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 April 2016

This was an announced inspection carried out on 15 March 2016.

21a and 21b Johnson Avenue can provide accommodation and care for six people who have a learning disability and who live with reduced sight or hearing. There were six people living in the service at the time of our inspection. Most of the people had special communication needs and used personal versions of sign assisted language to express themselves. The accommodation was two houses that were next door to each other and which had a connecting hallway on the first floor.

There was a registered manager. 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 knew how to respond to any concerns that might arise so that people were kept safe from abuse. People had been helped to avoid the risk of accidents and medicines were managed safely. There were enough staff on duty and background checks had been completed before new staff were appointed.

Staff had received training and guidance and they knew how to support people in the right way including how to respond to people who had special communication needs. People had been assisted to receive all of the healthcare assistance they needed.

Staff had ensured that people’s rights were respected by helping them to make decisions for themselves. The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how registered persons apply the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and to report on what we find. These safeguards protect people when they are not able to make decisions for themselves and it is necessary to deprive them of their liberty in order to keep them safe. In relation to this, the registered manager had worked with the relevant local authorities to ensure that people only received lawful care that respected their rights.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff recognised people’s right to privacy, respected confidential information and promoted people’s dignity.

People had been consulted about the support they wanted to receive and they had been given all of the assistance they needed, including people who could become distressed. People had been helped to enjoy a wide range of interests and hobbies. There was a system for resolving complaints.

Quality checks had been completed to ensure that people received safe support. Good team work was promoted and staff were supported to speak out if they had any concerns because the service was run in an open and inclusive way. People had benefited from staff acting upon good practice guidance.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 April 2016

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to keep people safe from the risk of abuse.

People had been helped to avoid the risk of accidents and medicines were managed safely.

There were enough staff on duty and background checks had been completed before new staff were employed.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 April 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had received training and guidance to enable them to support people in the right way. Their skills included knowing how to meet people’s special communication needs.

People were helped to eat and drink enough and they had been supported to receive all the healthcare attention they needed.

People were helped to make decisions for themselves. When this was not possible legal safeguards were followed to ensure that decisions were made in people’s best interests.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 April 2016

The service was caring.

Staff were caring, kind and compassionate.

Staff respected people’s right to privacy and promoted their dignity.

Confidential information was kept private.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 April 2016

The service was responsive.

People had been consulted about the support they wanted to receive.

Staff had provided people with all the support they needed including people who could become distressed.

People had been supported to enjoy a wide range of hobbies and interests.

There was a system to resolve complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 April 2016

The service was well led.

Quality checks had been completed to ensure that people received safe support.

People and their relatives had been asked for their opinions of the service so that their views could be taken into account.

Steps had been taken to promote good team work and staff had been encouraged to speak out if they had any concerns.

People had benefited from staff acting upon good practice guidance.