The Kent Autistic Trust - 9 Perrys Close

At our previous inspection on 06 January 2016, we found a breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider had failed to properly manage medicines. We asked the provider to take action and meet the regulation.

The provider sent us an action plan on 15 March 2016. The action plan detailed that they had already made changes and were meeting the regulation.

Kent Autistic Trust – 9 Perry’s Close 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 service accommodates six people with an autistic spectrum condition in one purpose built building. There were five people living at the service when we inspected.

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.

The management of the service was overseen by a board of trustees for The Kent Autistic Trust. Trustees and the chief executive officer for the trust visited the service regularly.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

Medicines practice at the service had improved. People received their medicines when they should and medicines were handled safely.

The service provided good quality person centred care and support to people enabling them to live as fulfilled and meaningful lives as possible.

Staff and people received additional support and guidance from the provider’s positive behaviour support team which also consisted of a speech and language therapist and occupational therapist. Strategies were in place to manage any incidents of heightened anxiety and behaviours that others may find challenging.

People and their relatives had opportunities to give feedback about the service in a variety of ways. People were enabled to feedback about their service through weekly house meetings and their annual review meetings. Relatives were positive about the service received.

The provider had sustained good practice, development and improvement at the service. The provider had achieved accreditation and continued to work in partnership with organisations to develop best practice within the service.

The provider had a strong set of values that were embedded into each staff member’s practice and the way the service was managed. Staff were committed and proud of the service. The provider and registered manager used effective systems to continually monitor and improve the quality of the service.

Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of abuse or harm. Staff followed appropriate guidance to minimise identified risks to people's health, safety and welfare.

People had been supported within the service in a person centred manner to understand death and dying to support them to understand about the sad loss of a friend and housemate. People were supported to celebrate the person’s life and to remember the person.

The registered manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). 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 support this practice.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. People were enabled to make themselves drinks and snacks when they wanted them. People received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access healthcare services.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. Interactions between staff and people were caring and kind. Staff were patient, compassionate and they demonstrated affection and warmth in their discussions with people.

Care plans detailed people’s preferred routines, their wishes and preferences. They detailed what people were able to do for themselves and what support was required from staff to aid their independence wherever possible. People were supported to achieve their goals and aspirations. People were involved in review meetings.

The provider operated safe and robust recruitment and selection procedures to make sure staff were suitable and safe to work with people. There were suitable numbers of staff to safely meet people’s needs. Staff received regular training and supervision to help them to meet people's needs effectively.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Staff clearly demonstrated that they valued and respected the people whom they supported. One staff member told us, 'The guys are fascinating. We go out and have fun with them. I really love my job'.

People were supported to lead active lives. They took part in daily living skills and had opportunities to access the local community and keep in contact with their families.

Staff supported people to maintain their health and to safely take the medicines that they needed to promote their health and welfare.

There were usually enough staff on duty to meet people's assessed needs.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. People who used the service and their relatives were regularly asked for their views about the service. One relative commented that despite the inconsistency in the staff team, staff provided a consistently high level of care. Another person commented, 'Just to say thank you to your staff for the care you gave to X. The dedication of yourself was beyond the call of duty and was very much appreciated'.

People were supported to take part in daily living skills, access the local community and were supported to cope with behaviours that caused them anxiety. Staff received the necessary training to support people with these tasks.

The service had systems in place to monitor and evaluate its quality of care. Positive feedback was received from representatives of people who use the service. Comments included, 'I was very encouraged to see that KAT had very caring staff who were really proactive in working solely for the best interests of the individual'; and 'The staff at Perry's Close have my full backing and I am happy with my son's treatment and his life'.