The Regard Partnership Limited - Vancouver Road

Vancouver Road-Regards Partnership is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during the inspection. The service provides personal care for up to eight people with a learning disability and/or autistic spectrum disorder. 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 service was registered to accommodate eight people and was at full occupancy on the first day of the inspection. We noted there were seven people living at the care home when we concluded our visit as one person had moved to a different service.

At our previous inspection we rated the service as Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

People continued to receive safe care. Risk management plans had been developed to mitigate identified risks and the service had taken action in relation to fire safety concerns. The provider had informed us of safeguarding concerns and demonstrated how they had worked with local professionals to safeguard people from abuse. Well-organised systems were in place to safely manage people’s medicine needs. Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed, so that trends could be detected and addressed. People were provided with a clean environment and protected from the risk of cross infection. Robust recruitment practices were in place so that people were supported by staff with the right skills, knowledge and approach to provide kind, respectful, dignified and effective care.

The provider assessed people’s needs before they moved into the service and individual care and support plans were developed to meet people’s needs and wishes. The care and support plans, and accompanying risk assessments were kept under review. Staff were provided with training and support to effectively meet people’s needs. People were asked for their consent prior to receiving personal care and other support. Processes were in place to enable people to make choices about their lives and staff understood how to support people in the least restrictive way possible. Effective care and support was given to enable people to receive a balanced and enjoyable diet, and they were supported by staff to attend health care appointments and adhere to guidance from health care professionals.

People who used the service continued to receive support to engage in fulfilling activities at home and in the wider community. At the time of the service we observed that there was a lively programme of events to mark Christmas and New Year and some people told us they felt very satisfied with their activities. However, external observations indicated that the service could expand on the current activity programme to offer greater variety and interest for people. Complaints were suitably managed and the locality manager confirmed that they were reviewing how they specifically ensured relatives had comprehensive information about the complaints procedure.

We received positive comments about how the service was managed, and the approachable style and integrity of the management team. We observed how people who used the service enjoyed the relaxed and friendly atmosphere that was promoted by management and the staff. Staff felt well supported in their roles and described a culture and ethos that was professional, caring and open. Clear quality assurance systems were in place, which included monitoring visits by the provider’s own quality team. The management team spoke in a transparent manner about challenges the service had faced since the previous inspection and demonstrated that learning for the future took place in these circumstances.

We have made one recommendation for the service to seek guidance from reputable sources about how to further develop the scope of its activity programme.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The Regard Partnership Vancouver Road is a residential service providing care and support for up to eight people with a learning disability. At the time of this inspection the service was providing support to seven people.

The service did not have a registered manager in post. A senior support worker was the acting manager and their role was covered by a support worker acting in a senior role. 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.

People were protected against harm and abuse. Staff received training in safeguarding procedures and had knowledge of how to identify different types of abuse. Additionally staff knew how to whistle-blow and bring to the attention of outside agencies any safeguarding concerns they had in the event of the provider not addressing them thoroughly.

Staff assessed risks to people and took steps to protect them from avoidable harm. People were protected from the risk of avoidable harm because staff assessed, managed and reviewed their risks. People’s care records were personalised and detailed and people were supported to participate in the activities they chose. A complaints procedure was in place. People knew how to complain and complaints were dealt with appropriately. The service actively sought feedback and used the information given to improve service delivery.

Staff administered medicines safely and conducted regular checks to ensure that the home environment was safe. Each person had an individualised plan to ensure their safe exit from the building in the event of a fire.

Staff were recruited using a robust process that ensured they were suitable to work with people and there were sufficient staff at all times to safely meet people’s needs. People received care and support from staff who received supervision. Staff were trained and had their performances appraised.

People were supported to access sufficient amounts of nutritious food that met their dietary requirements. People had timely access to the healthcare services they required to monitor and maintain their health and well-being. People did not have their liberty deprived unlawfully. The service was delivered with regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards.

People viewed the staff as caring and relatives were made to feel welcome when they visited. People’s independence and choices were supported and their dignity and privacy were respected.

People’s care records were personalised and detailed and people were supported to participate in the activities they chose. A complaints procedure was in place. People knew how to complain and complaints were dealt with appropriately. The service actively sought feedback and used the information given to improve service delivery.

The acting manager carried out regular quality and health and safety audits of the service. The acting manager worked in partnership with health and social care professionals.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff were trained and understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

The rights of people who use the services were promoted. They were involved in the decision making on matters concerning them and in the running of the home.

Medications were handled safely. There was a medication procedure in place. Risks were assessed around the handling of medication and the effects of medication. Staff were trained and inducted fully before they could administer medication.

There were systems in place to ensure high standard of health and safety.

Is the service effective?

People were involved in their care needs assessment and in developing their support plans. Their support plans were tailored to reflect their individual needs and the outcomes they wanted to achieve. Other professionals were involved where required.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by attentive staff. Staff were patient, encouraging and caring. They spoke to people with respect. We saw positive interactions taking place.

Staff listened to and supported people in a relaxed manner. People commented that they liked living there and liked the staff. We saw that staff were not rushed and spent time with residents talking to them or in activities.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. They home responded quickly to the changing needs of people. They understood the individual needs of the people they worked with and supported them accordingly.

Is the service well-led?

There were a range of quality assurance systems in place by the provider. They consulted with families, people who used the service and staff using various methods such as surveys and meetings to obtain their views on service delivery.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes in place.

Staff had regular supervision sessions, appraisals and team meetings to ensure they were adequately supported to do their jobs effectively.

The home had robust processes in place to manage the risk of infection. Residents and staff contributed to the running of the home and there were systems in place to maintain the quality of the service.

The people we spoke with said they went to the GP or the dentist when they needed to. There was evidence that the service supported people to be healthy and that when they had healthcare needs they had access to the right services.