Daventry Road

The home is located in Dunchurch in Warwickshire and has three medium sized homes at the same site. There are communal living areas and well-maintained outdoor communal spaces.

We found the following examples of good practice:

Daventry Road ensured current government guidelines in relation to COVID-19 were being followed by staff and visitors to reduce the risk of infection to people living at the home. This included comprehensive checks for visitors on arrival.

The registered manager had a methodical and organised approach to recording individuals COVID-19 vaccination status and COVID-19 test results. Detailed and up-to-date policies and procedures were in place.

We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines as a designated care setting.

Daventry Road is a residential care home for up to 16 younger adults who live with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. 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.

The accommodation is provided in three separate houses, set in their own communal grounds. At the time of this inspection, fourteen people were living at Daventry Road.

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: Registering the Right Support CQC policy.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

People were protected from the risks of abuse because staff were trained in recognising and reporting any safeguarding concerns. The registered manager checked staff were suitable for their role before they started working at the home. There were enough suitably skilled, qualified and experienced staff to support people safely.

Risks to people’s individual health and wellbeing were assessed, using recognised risk assessment tools. People’s care and support was planned to promote their independence while minimising their individual risks. The registered manager regularly checked the premises, essential supplies and equipment were well maintained and safe for people to use. Medicines were stored, administered and managed safely.

People’s individual and diverse needs were assessed and staff were trained in subjects that matched people’s needs. People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet that met their needs and preferences.

People were supported to maintain their health and to obtain specialist healthcare advice when their health needs changed. People continued to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People and staff felt well cared for and were supported to develop their skills. Staff understood people’s diverse needs, interests and preferences and supported them to develop their independence. Staff respected people’s right to privacy and supported people to maintain their dignity.

People were supported and encouraged to socialise with each other at home and in the local community. People were encouraged to maintain their personal interests and hobbies. People had no complaints about the service.

People knew the registered manager well and were invited to share their views of the service through conversations and regular meetings. Staff identified the registered manager as a role model to aspire to. The registered manager and staff regularly checked the quality of the service to make sure people’s needs were met safely and effectively.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 16 younger people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. Fourteen people were living in the three houses provided by the service at the time of our inspection.

Support workers understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm and were encouraged and supported to raise concerns under the provider’s safeguarding and whistleblowing policies. The registered manager assessed risks to people’s health and welfare and people’s care plans included the actions support workers should take to minimise the risks.

There were enough suitably skilled and experienced support workers on duty to meet people’s care and social needs. The registered manager checked support workers suitability to provide care and support during the recruitment process.

The registered manager regularly checked that the premises were suitable for people’s needs and properly maintained, to minimise risks to people’s safety. People’s medicines were managed, stored and administered safely.

People’s needs were met effectively because support workers received appropriate training and support. Support workers read people’s care plans and observed experienced support workers until they knew people well and understood their needs and abilities. Support workers were encouraged to reflect on their practice and to develop their skills and knowledge.

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 only deprived of their liberty under the authority of the local supervisory body. For people with complex needs, their families and other health professionals were involved in making decisions in their best interests.

Risks to people’s nutrition were minimised because staff knew about people’s individual dietary requirements and preferences. People made their own choices about their food and were supported to maintain a balanced diet.

People were cared for by kind and compassionate staff who knew them well. Staff knew about people’s individual preferences for care and their likes and dislikes. Staff ensured people obtained advice and support from other health professionals to maintain and improve their health and when their health needs changed.

Support workers were attentive to people’s feelings and behaviours and understood how to reassure them. People were supported to feel empowered, to develop their independence and to maintain relationships with those people were important to them.

People and their representatives were involved finding creative ways to enable people to live as full a life as possible Care was planned to meet people’s individual needs and abilities and care plans were regularly reviewed.

People told us support workers were kind and respected their choices. People were encouraged to give feedback at care plan review meetings, to ensure improvements in the quality of the service focused on people’s needs. Support workers were guided and supported in their practice by a management team they respected.

The provider’s quality monitoring system included regular reviews of people’s care plans and checks on the premises, equipment, medicines management and staff’s practice. The focus of the service was to ensure people enjoyed the best possible outcomes and lived the lives they wanted to live.

The provider’s plans to improve the quality of the service included improving staff retention, redecoration and refurbishment in accordance with people’s personal tastes and seeking out opportunities for people to be more involved in their community.

The three care plans we looked at gave us a good understanding of people's needs and abilities. The manager had identified risks to people's health and well-being and the instructions for staff minimised the identified risks. Support workers told us the care plans were informative and helped them get to know the person. Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated to reflect changes in people's care and support needs.

We found that the provider's medicines policy and procedures were effective. We saw that medicines were kept safely and were only administered by trained staff.

Support workers told us they felt well prepared before they started working independently with people. They said they had regular meetings with their line manager to discuss their training and professional development. They told us the manager gave them advice and opportunities.

We found that the manager dealt effectively with complaints. They followed the provider's policy and procedures to investigate, respond and take action to resolve issues for the complainant.

People who lived at Daventry Road told us they 'liked' living at Daventry Road and went out for walks and to college. We saw that people were relaxed and at ease with staff and within their home environment.

Relatives we spoke with told us they were happy with the care their family member received. They told us, 'XX looks content and happy and very settled there' and 'There is such a lovely homely atmosphere, I cannot fault it.'

Each person had a care plan and staff told us they felt supported by the manager and had the skills they needed to deliver the care people using the service needed. We found that people who used the service had the support they needed to regularly enjoy their preferred activities.

We found procedures in place to protect people from harm and staff described what these were and how they would report any suspicion that a person who used the service had been at risk of harm from abuse.

We saw staff included people in decision making about every day activities. Most of the people who used the service had complex needs and were not able to sign consent to their care and treatment. Where a person had not signed consent it was not documented why on their care record.