Background to this inspection
Updated
16 March 2022
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.
This inspection took place on 23/02/2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection.
Updated
16 March 2022
Sense Castleton Road is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Sense Castleton Road can accommodate six adults with learning disabilities and sensory impairments across two floors. The home provides a service to people with complex needs, some of whom have additional physical disabilities and behaviours that challenge. At the time of this inspection, five people were using the service.
The inspection took place on 18 and 26 June 2018 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in April 2016, the service was rated as Good. During this inspection, we found the service remained Good.
There was a registered manager at 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.
Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. The provider had safe recruitment processes in place. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Risk assessments were carried out to mitigate the risks of harm people may face at home and in the community. People were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection. The provider analysed incidents and used this information as a learning tool to improve the service.
People’s care needs were assessed before they began to use the service to ensure the provider could meet their needs. Relatives were confident staff had the skills to work with their family member. Staff were supported with training opportunities, supervisions and appraisals. People were supported to eat a nutritionally balanced diet and to maintain their health.
The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the need to obtain consent before delivering care. 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.
Staff described people’s individual care needs and preferences. Relatives were kept updated on the well-being of their family member and were invited to participate in events held at the service. Staff were knowledgeable about equality and diversity. People were supported to maintain their independence and their privacy and dignity was promoted.
Care plans were personalised and contained people’s preferences. Staff understood how to deliver personalised care. The service was meeting people’s accessible communication needs. The provider had introduced a new way of record-keeping so that records would have more meaning for people. Staff recorded what worked well and what did not work well for people so that consistent support could be offered. People were offered a range of activities to participate in at home and in the community. The service had a complaints procedure and kept a record of complaints.
Relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the leadership in the service. The provider had a system to obtain feedback about the service in order to make improvements. Staff had regular meetings to keep updated on key care topics and training. The provider had various quality audit systems and identified issues were used to improve the service. The registered manager worked in partnership with outside agencies to share examples of good practice.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.