Archived: 64 Charlton Lane

64 Charlton Lane provides personal care and support for five adults living with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of this inspection, five people were using the service.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

People were complimentary about the service and told us they were happy. People were supported by staff who treated them with kindness, compassion and respect. People’s privacy and dignity was respected, and their independence promoted. The service used innovative and modern technology to support and promote people’s communication and independence. People’s communication needs had been assessed and information was presented in formats that met their needs. People were encouraged to be active members of their local community, participate in activities that were of interest to them and build relationships with those that mattered to them to prevent social isolation. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy but told us they had nothing to complain about.

People were protected from the risk of abuse, and staff knew of their responsibility to protect people in their care from abuse or neglect. Risk to people had been identified, assessed and had appropriate risk management plans in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of avoidable harm. Accidents and incidents were reported and recorded, and any lessons learnt were used to improve the quality of the service. People were supported with their medicines safely and staff followed appropriate infection procedures to prevent the spread of diseases.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s needs were assessed, and care and support planed and delivered to meet individual needs. People were supported to eat healthy amounts for wellbeing and supported to access healthcare services where required. The service worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to ensure individual needs were met. Staff were supported through training and supervision to ensure they understood individual needs and had the knowledge and skills to support them.

The service was well led, the management team demonstrated a commitment to provide high quality care which was person-centred and promoted people’s independence. There were effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and to drive improvements. People and their relative’s views were gathered to improve on the service and staff knew of their individual responsibilities, they told us they felt supported in their role and were happy working at the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was good (published 11 September 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

64 Charlton Lane is a supported living service that provides personal care for up to five adults who have a range of needs including learning disabilities. The people who used the service had a separate tenancy agreement with a housing association at this address. At the time of our inspection four people were using the service.

We previously carried out an unannounced inspection of this service on 15 May 2015. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the regulations that we assessed.

The service had 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.

At this inspection we found that staff knew how to keep people safe. People who used the service told us they felt safe and that staff and the registered manager treated them well. The service had clear procedures to support staff to recognise and respond to abuse. The registered manager and staff completed safeguarding training.

Staff completed risk assessments for every person who used the service which were up to date and included detailed guidance for staff to reduce risks. There was an effective system to manage accidents and incidents, and to prevent them happening again. The service had arrangements in place to deal with emergencies.

The service carried out comprehensive background checks of staff before they started working and there were enough staff on duty to support to people when required. Staff supported people so that they took their medicines safely. However, we identified that staff did not monitor the medicine cabinet temperatures. We brought this to the attention of the registered manager; they procured new thermometer(s) and instructed staff to carry out regular temperature checks of medicine cabinets. We shall check this at our next inspection.

People commented positively about staff and told us they were satisfied with the way they looked after them. The service supported all staff through training and regular supervision. However, we found that four members of staff yearly appraisal was overdue, the registered manager told us that the staff appraisals were delayed due to the change of the manager and that they were now scheduled to be completed.

The service considered to have mental capacity for every person who used the service. At the time of inspection no one was subject to continuous control and supervision and people could leave the service. The registered manager and staff knew the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and acted according to this legislation.

Staff assessed people’s nutritional needs and supported them to have a balanced diet. They supported people to access the healthcare services they required and monitored their healthcare appointments.

People or their relatives where appropriate, were involved in the assessment, planning and review of their care. Staff considered people’s choices, health and social care needs, and their general wellbeing. The care plans were person centred and reflected people’s current needs.

Staff supported people in a way that was kind, caring, and respectful. Staff also protected people’s privacy and dignity.

The service supported people to take part in a range of activities in support of their need for social interaction and stimulation. The service had a clear policy and procedure about managing complaints. People knew how to complain and told us they would do so if necessary.

There was a positive culture at the service where people felt included and consulted. People commented positively about staff and the registered manager. Staff felt supported by the registered manager.

The service sought the views of people who used the services, and staff to help drive improvements. The provider had effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of services people received, and to make improvements where required.

We found quality monitoring audits had taken place on a regular basis, and that learning from the audits and necessary changes were implemented to improve the service provision and delivery.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

We found people's care and support needs were assessed and regularly reviewed. Staff understood people's care needs and knew how to protect them from risk and harm. Staff we spoke with felt they were adequately supported. There was no evidence that quality monitoring audits have taken place on a regular basis, or that learning from the audits was taking place or appropriate changes had been implemented.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.