You are here

West Lancashire Short Break Services Outstanding

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 23 August 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 23 and 29 August 2017. The first day of the inspection was unannounced.

West Lancashire Short Break Service is registered to provide accommodation for up to six people over the age of 18 with a diagnosis of a learning disability, autistic spectrum, physical disability and older people on a short term basis. At the time of our inspection 70 people were accessing the service and six people were in receipt of care at the home during our inspection. People who used the service were referred to as ‘guests’ in the home.

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 the last comprehensive inspection on 9 January 2015 the service was rated as good overall with outstanding in effective and was meeting the regulatory requirements relevant at that time. During this inspection we found the service was meeting the requirements of the current legislation. The home had successfully retained an outstanding rating in effective and had improved its rating for responsive to outstanding.

There was an exceptional training programme in place that provided in depth and relevant knowledge and skills to fully equip staff to meet the individual needs of guests.

Professionals were exceptionally positive in their feedback about the home and the quality of the care they provided ensuring the guest’s individual health needs were met.

The care delivered to guests was exceptional and we observed multiple examples of this during our inspection. Relatives regarded the care guest’s received as the highest quality. There was a collaborative approach to the delivery of care. Discussions regularly took place that ensured care was relevant up to date and continuous in the high quality delivered.

Guests and family members confirmed they had been involved in the development and reviews of the care files. Records we looked at had detailed and exceptional information in them about how to support guests individual needs, likes and choices.

Activities were tailored around guest’s likes and choices and the programme of activities available for guests was excellent and met their needs. Staff supported guests to engage in meaningful activities both in the home as well as out in the community.

There was an excellent system to deal with complaints in place and records we looked at confirmed the actions taken as a response to concerns or complaints. The feedback about the service was exceptional. Guests and relatives confirmed the home regularly asked for their feedback about the service that was delivered to them.

Systems to protect guests from the risks of abuse were comprehensive and detailed. Investigations had been thoroughly completed and included evidence of the actions taken to ensure that the guest’s safety was maintained. Staff demonstrated a detailed understanding of the principles of safeguarding and how to protect guest’s from the risks of abuse.

There was a detailed recruitment programme in place that ensured guests received quality care from a very skilled staff team. Staffing levels ensured that guests received high standards of care that protected their welfare and safety.

The building had been purpose built and offered excellent well maintained facilities that supported safety and quality in the care that guests received. All bedrooms had excellent facilities available to guest’s which included ensuite showers, flat screen televisions and internet access.

Thorough risk assessments were in place to protect guests from any identified risks enabling them to take positive risks. Records of regular environmental checks and service certificates demonstrated that the home was maintained to a very high standard.

The management of medicines clearly met the needs of guests in the home. Staff demonstrated excellent knowledge and skills during administration of medicines, Records and procedures identified effective systems were in place to ensure medicines were managed safely.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Staff had a detailed understanding by staff of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS) and of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and its relation to protecting guests from unlawful restrictions.

The privacy, respect and dignity of guests was an essential competent of the experience of the guests in receipt of care. Guidance, up to date policies and regular training provided up to date information on how to meet guest’s diverse needs.

We received exceptional feedback about the management and oversight of the home. Audits and quality checks were in place and demonstrated the ongoing oversight and development to ensure guests received a high standard of care whilst in the home.

Inspection carried out on 9 Janaury 2015

During a routine inspection

West Lancashire Short Breaks Scheme can accommodate up to six people with a learning disability and/or a physical disability on a short term basis at any one time. At the time of our inspection the provider was working with 55 people who were accessing their service. Showers, bathrooms and four of the bedrooms have been designed to meet the needs of people with a physical disability, having specific equipment and overhead tracking. As well as the main kitchen, lounge, dining area and conservatory, there is a smaller lounge and a sensory room. There is an enclosed garden, with a lawn, paved areas and raised beds.

This inspection was conducted on 9 January 2015 by an adult social care inspector from the Care Quality Commission. The provider had been given short notice of our planned visit, in accordance with our inspection methodologies for services of this nature and size.

There was a registered manager at the service at the time of our 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.

We received positive comments from everyone we spoke with. We looked at a wide range of records, including four people’s care plans and the personnel records for three members of staff. We observed how staff interacted with people using the service.

Records showed that relevant checks had been made to ensure new staff members were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

People’s care was based on an assessment of their needs, with information being gathered from a variety of sources. Evidence was available to demonstrate that people had been involved in making decisions about the way care and support was delivered.

We saw that regular reviews of care were conducted and any changes in people’s needs were documented and strategies had been put in place to address any further needs. People’s privacy and dignity were consistently respected.

People who used the service were safe. The staff team were well trained and had good support from their management team. They knew how to report any issues of concern about a person’s safety and were competent to deliver the care and support needed by those who used the service.

Inspection carried out on 30 July 2013

During a routine inspection

Assessment and support planning information was person centred and included likes and dislikes, routines and preferences. Introductory visits took place allowing the individual to get to know the service and the staff team. There were good systems in place to ensure that any changing needs or new risks were identified and responded to.

We received positive feedback from people using the service. One person who regularly stayed at the home commented “I like it here. We go out and do stuff.”

People were supported to join in with preparing meals and snacks, according to their wishes and abilities. We saw that people had a good choice at meal times and that their individual preferences were met. One person staying at the home told us “The food is nice. There is always something I like.”

We found that medicines were securely stored, handled appropriately and safely administered by trained staff.

Staff received a good level of support and training which equipped them for their role.

People who used the service and their relatives were encouraged to share their views. Feedback surveys were distributed to people using the service, their representatives and other professionals with links to the home. Regular staff meetings and individual staff supervision sessions took place. The manager and senior staff from the provider organisation carried out quality monitoring audits and checks. These measures helped to promote a high quality service.

Inspection carried out on 29 August 2012

During a routine inspection

Staff referred to those staying at the home as guests. The three guests staying at the home at the time of our visit had communication difficulties, meaning they were unable to easily express their views about the service. We observed the interaction between staff and guests and a member of staff supported one guest to tell us about their experiences at the home.

We were told they preferred not to stay when certain other guests were staying and visits were planned around this. They enjoyed their visits, felt well cared for, could choose their activities, went to bed at a time of their choosing and liked a lie in at weekends. The relationship between this guest and the support worker was warm and friendly.

Thorough assessments and introductory visits took place before any new guest stayed at the home. A member of staff told us; “Some people might come for tea for a few months first, others might be happy to stay after just a few visits.”

The care provided was personalised to each individual, with preferences, likes and dislikes being taken into account. The building design, layout and fittings meant people with complex mobility or sensory needs could stay at the home, and be confident the environment would be suitable for them.

People using the service, their relatives and other stakeholders had good opportunities to influence how the service was being run. We saw that any suggestions or ideas for improvement were taken on board and where possible acted upon.