Raynel Drive

Updated 8 January 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 3 and 4 December 2018. We gave the service two days’ notice of our first visit to the office on 3 December 2018 because we needed to be sure someone would be available to assist us with the inspection. We made telephone calls to staff on 4 December 2018.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before our inspection, we looked at information we held about the service. The provider sent us a Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the information we held about the service, such as notifications we had received from the registered manager. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We sought feedback from the local authority contract monitoring team prior to our visit.

During the inspection, we spoke with three people who used the service, the registered manager, support leader, and two care workers. We looked at a range of documents and records related to people’s care and the management of the service. We viewed two people's care records, medication records, three staff recruitment, induction and training files and a selection of records used to monitor the quality of the service. We visited two people in their own homes and observed care staff providing support and interacting with them.

Updated 8 January 2019

A comprehensive inspection of Raynel Drive, took place on 3 and 4 December 2018. This inspection was announced.

Raynel Drive is a 'care home'. 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 care service was developed and designed many years ago. However, the provider was working towards ensuring the service is 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.

Raynel Drive is a short break residential care service which aims to provide a holiday style atmosphere for up to five people who have a learning disability. Accommodation is a house with five bedrooms and bathroom facilities. Communal lounges, kitchen and dining areas are provided.

During our inspection there were four people staying at the respite service. The PIR received from the provider PIR said 54 people accessed the respite services within a 12-month period. At our last inspection the service was rated as good. At this inspection, we found the service remained good.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

The provider had robust systems and procedures in place to keep people safe. Staff were competent in their knowledge of what constituted abuse and how to safeguard people. There was a whistleblowing policy in place and staff knew how to raise concerns should this be required.

Medicines were managed effectively and they were stored correctly in line with the provider's policy. 'As required' medicines were administered when needed.

Risk assessments had been completed and reviewed regularly. Accidents and incidents were managed effectively and action taken to prevent future risks.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs and robust recruitment processes were in place to ensure people were of suitable character. Staff carried out training to ensure they had adequate skills and knowledge to meet people's needs. Staff were supported with regular supervisions and appraisals.

Health and safety checks were completed regularly and staff followed the providers procedures for infection control.

Staff were aware of people's nutritional needs and we found people were offered choices about their food preferences. People also received appropriate support from staff to maintain their health and wellbeing.

The provider followed their legal obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and implemented best practice guidance relating to capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were made.

Staff were caring, kind and respected peoples wishes. We saw people were encouraged to remain as independent as possible and alternative communications were used to allow people to make choices about their care. People's privacy and dignity was respected. Staff knocked on people's doors before entering and respected peoples wishes when providing care.

Pre-admission assessments were carried out before peoples stay to ensure their needs could be met. Care plans were person centred and reviewed regularly or when people's needs changed. Care plans included people's preferences, likes and dislikes.

People accessing the service were supported to participate in activities, to prevent social isolation. The provider had a car which meant people could do activities outside of the local area and facilitated further choice.

The manager and team leader were honest and open. Staff told us they felt supported and felt confident to raise any concerns. Complaints were managed and actions taken to prevent future occurrences.

Regular meetings took place with people, staff and management within the provider's company to obtain feedback and inform people of changes within the organisation.

The provider carried out audits to ensure quality assurance checks had been completed. This meant the provider had oversight of what was happening at the respite service. A customer involvement officer attended the service regularly to gather people's views and ensure actions were taken to improve the quality of care being provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.