• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Ansar 2

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

18 Bury And Bolton Road, Radcliffe, Manchester, Lancashire, M26 4LD 07968 940850

Provided and run by:
Ansar Projects Limited

All Inspections

6th October 2015

During a routine inspection

Ansar 2 is a semi-detached house on a main road on the outskirts of Radcliffe. It is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to two people with learning disabilities and complex needs. On the day of our inspection one person was living at the home, one person was staying occasionally for Respite Care.

The inspection took place on 6th October 2015. This was an announced inspection. The provider was given one days’ notice because the location is a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

The inspection team comprised of two adult social care inspectors.

The service has a registered manager who was present on the day of inspection. 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 we spoke with told us they felt safe in Ansar 2. Policies and procedures to safeguard people from abuse were in place. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults; they were able to tell us how to identify and respond to allegations of abuse. Staff were aware of the whistleblowing policy.

A safe system of recruitment was in place. During the inspection we found there were sufficient staff to provide the care and support people needed. We found staff had received the induction, training and supervision required to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles.

Staff and managers showed a commitment to person centred care. They were respectful and caring about the people they supported, they knew people well and were aware of peoples individual needs, like and dislikes.

We saw that people had access to a wide variety of activities outside of the home and opportunities to keep in touch with relatives and friends. Staff were innovative in their approach to ensuring people had a range of activities to choose from.

People’s care records were detailed and person centred. Care plans and risk assessments reflected people’s individual needs and provided sufficient information to ensure staff were able to provide people with safe and appropriate care and support. They were reviewed regularly to ensure they still reflected people’s needs.

We saw that staff respected people’s rights and choices. Staff we spoke with were able to demonstrate a good understanding of the importance of gaining consent to care and support. The registered manager and staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA and DoLS provide legal safeguards for people who are unable to make their own decisions. During our inspection we heard staff asking people what they wanted and seeking consent when offering support. Staff told us they also look at peoples body language and none verbal communication to see if they are happy and consenting to what they are doing.

The home was clean, well decorated and well maintained. Systems were in place to ensure all necessary health and safety checks were completed and there were procedures to guide staff in the event of emergencies that could affect the provision of care.

We found that people were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food. People told us they were able to choose what they wanted to eat and drink, they were involved in planning the menu and shopping.

We found that robust systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. Regular checks were carried out and issues and action taken recorded. We saw that the provider used a variety of methods to gather people’s views about the service, ideas for the future and how it could be improved.

People we spoke with said they had confidence in the registered manager and said they were approachable. They told us they could contact managers at any time if they needed to. Staff spoke positively about the registered manager and other managers; felt supported and enjoyed working for the organisation.

28 June 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection the person living at Ansar 2 was participating in an activity outside the home. We saw that they usually spent their days out of the house taking part in the activities they had chosen.

The person's physical and mental health needs had been assessed and these needs were regularly reviewed by healthcare professionals. Their day to day care and support needs had also been assessed and we saw evidence that they were consulted about the care plans in place.

We saw that medication was locked in a cabinet and accurate records were kept of their administration.

The manager carried out regular assessments on all aspects of the service. Any areas where improvements could be made were considered.

A recruitment process was followed for all staff. Checks were carried out to help confirm staff members were of good character and had the required skills to perform their work.

29 November 2012

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection the person living at Ansar 2 was participating in activities outside the home. The Manager told us that they usually spent their days taking part in activities such as trampolining, horse riding, swimming and at social clubs. We were able to see the results of the 'evaluation of Ansar services' that was completed in September 2012. Families, professionals, staff and people living at the service had contributed. Comments from all respondents were positive.

We saw that the person's medical, care and support needs had been individually assessed. Detailed care plans were in place that the person had been involved in and given their opinion of. The person did not have the capacity to consent to certain aspects of their life, and decisions had been made in their best interest.

There were enough staff so that each person could have the support of two care workers during each day. Staff were well trained.

All records were up to date, easy to understand and kept securely.