You are here

Expect Limited - 39 Beaconsfield Road Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 3 December 2015

The inspection took place on 20 October 2015 and was announced.

39 Beaconsfield Road is registered to provide accommodation for up to three adults with learning disabilities, who require personal care. It is a large four bedroom terraced property, situated in a residential area, close to local amenities and transport links. There were three people living at the service on the day of the inspection.

There is a registered manager in post 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 supported people to make decisions about their daily life and care needs. This was in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) (2005) Code of Practice.

Medication was stored safely and securely. Staff had completed training in medication administration.

The systems we saw ensured people received their medications safely.

People’s nutritional needs were monitored by the staff. People’s dietary requirements and preferences were taken into account.

Each person who lived at the home had a person centred plan. The plans we looked at contained relevant and detailed information. This helped to ensure staff had the information they needed to support people in the correct way and respect their wishes, their likes and dislikes.

A range of risk assessments had been undertaken depending on people’s individual needs to reduce the risk of harm. Risk assessments and behavioural management plans were in place for people who presented with behaviour that challenges. These risk assessments and behavioural management plans gave staff guidance to keep themselves and people who lived in the home safe, whilst in the home and when out in the community.

Sufficient numbers of staff were employed to provide care and support to help keep people safe and to offer support in accordance with individual need. This enabled people to take part in regular activities both at home and in the community when they wished to.

Staff had been appropriately recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Staff were only able to start work at the home when the provider had received satisfactory pre-employment checks.

Staff received an induction and regular mandatory (required) training to update their practice and knowledge. Records showed us that staff were up-to-date with the training. This helped to ensure that they had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

Staff felt supported in their roles and responsibilities.

Staff had good knowledge of people’s likes and dislikes in respect of food and drinks and people’s routines in respect of meal times. We saw that people who lived in the home had plenty to eat and drink.

People at the home were supported by the staff and external health care professionals to maintain their health and wellbeing.

People who lived in the home took part in a variety of activities both in the home and in the community.

During our visit we observed staff supported people in a caring manner and treat people with dignity and respect.

Staff understood people’s individual needs and how to meet them. We saw that there were good relationships between people living at the home and staff, with staff taking time to talk and interact with people.

A procedure was in place for managing complaints. We found that complaints had been managed in accordance with the home’s complaints procedure.

Systems were in place to check on the quality of the service and ensure improvements were made. This included carrying out regular audits on areas of practice.

We looked around the building. We found it was clean and well maintained. Staff had a rota in place to ensure cleaning was completed daily.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 3 December 2015

The service was safe.

Staff understood how to recognise abuse and how to report concerns or allegations.

People who displayed behaviour that challenges had a plan of care and risk assessments in place to protect them and other people from the risk of harm.

There were enough staff on duty at all times to ensure people were supported safely.

Recruitment checks had been carried out for staff to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

Medication was stored securely and administered safely by trained staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 3 December 2015

The service was effective.

Staff followed the Mental Capacity Act (2005) for people who lacked mental capacity to make their own decisions.

People’s physical and mental health needs were monitored and recorded. Staff recognised when additional support was required and people were supported to access a range of health care services.

Staff said they were well supported through induction, supervision, appraisal and the home’s training programme.

We saw people’s dietary needs were managed with reference to individual preferences and choice.

Caring

Good

Updated 3 December 2015

The service was caring.

We observed positive interactions between people living at the home and staff.

Staff treated people with dignity. They had a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences.

We saw that people had choices with regard to daily living activities.

People were supported to be as independent as they could be on a daily basis.

Responsive

Good

Updated 3 December 2015

The service was responsive.

We saw that people’s person centred plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed to reflect their current needs.

Staff understood what people’s care needs were. Support was provided in line with their individual plans of care.

A process for managing complaints was in place and families we spoke with knew how to make a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 3 December 2015

The service was well led.

The home had a registered manager in post.

The home manager provided an effective lead in the home and was supported by a clear management structure.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the care and standards to help improve practice.