We carried out a review of the data available to us about Upperton Gardens on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Upperton Gardens, you can give feedback on this service.
Upperton Gardens is a residential care home registered to provide personal care to up six people with learning disabilities, autism and/or sensory impairment. There were six people living at the home at the time of the inspection.
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 and what we found
People were protected from the risk of abuse. Risks to people had been assessed and guidance was in place for staff on how to manage identified areas of risk. Staff were aware of the action to take to keep people safe. People’s medicines were safely managed. There were enough staff working on each shift at the home to ensure people’s needs were met. The provider followed safe recruitment practices.
Staff knew how to manage the risk of the spread of infection safely. The manager maintained a record of any incidents and accidents that occurred at the home and reviewed this information for learning to reduce the risk of repeat occurrence.
Staff sought people’s consent when offering them support. 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. Staff were supported in their roles through regular training and supervision. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and had access to range of healthcare services when needed.
People’s needs were assessed. They and their relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care. Their care plans reflected their individual needs and preferences. The home had facilities and adaptations which met people’s needs. Staff treated people with care and consideration. They respected people’s privacy and treated them with dignity. People were involved in making day to day decisions about the support they received.
The provider had a complaints procedure in place and information was given to people in formats which met their needs. People were supported to take part in a range of activities which reflected their interests. They were supported to maintain the relationships that were important to them. Staff spoke positively about the working culture within the home. The manager and staff were aware of the responsibilities of their roles. The views of people and relatives were sought through regular meetings and the use of surveys. The provider had systems in place for monitoring the quality of the service and driving service improvements.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
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.
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 16 June 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.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People remained safe and happy at the service. People were protected from the risk of potential abuse. Staff had received training on safeguarding adults and knew how to identify abuse and the action to take to keep people safe.
People were involved in identifying and managing risks to their well-being. Risk assessments were detailed and had sufficient information for staff on how to support people safely and without restricting their freedom unnecessarily.
People received appropriate care because there were sufficient numbers of skilled staff deployed on each shift. Pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure the suitability of staff to support people safely.
People’s care was provided by appropriately skilled and knowledgeable staff. Staff received the support, training and supervision they required to carry out their roles effectively. Staff had opportunities to develop and progress in their careers.
People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.
Staff understood and promoted people’s rights in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff had received training in MCA and had good knowledge of the principles and how to support people to make decisions about their day to day living. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications were made to a supervisory body when needed to ensure any restrictive practices were authorised and appropriate.
People continued to receive care that was focussed on their individual needs. Care and support plans were individualised and contained sufficient guidance for staff on how to provide care to each person. People and their relatives were involved in the planning, developing and reviewing their care plans. Staff understood how to communicate with people to ensure they understood how to involve them in service provision.
People’s privacy and dignity was upheld at the service. Staff delivered people’s care in a kind and caring manner and treated people as individuals and with respect. People were comfortable around staff and the environment was warm and friendly.
People’s views were sought and the service listened to their feedback. People and their relatives had access to the complaints procedure and knew how to raise any concerns about the care provided. The registered manager reviewed and resolved complaints in line with the provider’s procedure.
People and staff were positive about how the service was managed and the leadership of the registered manager. The registered manager was enthusiastic and passionate about the quality of care provided at the service and knew people and their needs well. Staff were valued at the service and shared the provider’s vision and values to support people to live fulfilling lives.
Audits systems were used effectively to drive improvements at the service. Regular checks and monitoring of the service ensured people received care appropriate for their needs. Views of people, their relatives, healthcare professionals and staff were consistently sought and their feedback considered to develop the service.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Upperton Gardens is located in Eastbourne. It has been established since 2007. It is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to six individuals with learning disabilities, autism and challenging behaviour between the ages of 18-65. Currently Upperton Gardens supports four male and two female people.
Upperton Gardens is a large, six bedroom Victorian house close to the town centre of Eastbourne.
Three bedrooms are situated on the first floor and three are on the top floor. Two bedrooms have en-suite facilities. The remaining four bedrooms share three bathrooms.
A registered manager was 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.
The manager was proud of the service and explained that the provider had developed the service to try to meet the needs of younger adults who enjoyed an active life.
Relatives told us, “It fits my relative’s needs, there is lots to do” and “This was the best. I just wish there were more places like this for young people.” A professional said, “They are always willing to listen and work with us”.
Staff were motivated and had been provided with appropriate training and support. Staff told us, “Staffing levels are good”. People were able to engage in a wide variety of activities within the service and outside, in both services provided for people with disabilities and none.There were enough staff to spend time with people and support them in ways that encouraged their independence and made them feel safe. A relative said, “I’m satisfied there’s enough staff. What’s more, they’ve had lovely people join over the years and they have stayed.”
Peoples’ support plans were detailed and contained sufficient information to effectively direct and inform staff of people’s needs. People and their relatives had been involved in the development of support plans to help ensure they reflected people wishes and interests.Relatives told us, “We have been involved in the planning. We have a meeting or are sent the information and can talk with them about the care [my relative] receives”. Risk assessments provided staff with clear guidance on how to support people appropriately and minimise identified risks.
Staff understood how to recognise abuse and to report their concerns. There were policies and procedures in place for managing risk. Risk assessments were centred around the needs of the person. People were encouraged to maintain as much independent as possible.
Medicines were stored and administered safely. Staff were trained in the administration of medicines and kept relevant records that were accurate and fit for purpose.
People were supported to have a balanced and nutritious diet. People were supported by staff to prepare drinks, snacks and meals where it was appropriate.
The service had worked effectively in partnership with other local services and health professionals in order to meet people support needs. Staff had developed supportive and caring relationships with people. Staff were highly motivated and throughout the inspection we observed staff actively engaging with and encouraging people to undertake activities.
Staff understood the aims of the home. They expressed confidence in the provider and manager’s leadership of the home. There was good communication between staff and everyone helped each other. Everyone we spoke with commented how Upperton Gardens was a service with values that were embedded into everyday practice. A professional who regularly visited the service told us, “In my opinion it is unusual to find a manager who is hands on, very knowledgeable about the clients, eager to take on new ideas and keen to set these ideas in place.”
We found that care plans clearly documented the needs of people and how they should be met. Staff ensured that consent was obtained prior to providing support. Where appropriate, specialist advice and support was obtained to meet people's individual needs.
The home had a thorough recruitment procedure in place to ensure that they employed suitable staff to work in the home. There were safe systems in place for the management of medication. The organisation had systems to ensure that the quality of care provided was monitored and reviewed on a regular basis.
We observed staff interacting positively with people. Care plans were bulky but contained very detailed advice and guidance for staff. Where appropriate, specialist advice and support was obtained to meet people's needs.
There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty and staff felt well supported. Staff were clear about what they should do if they suspected abuse. They were also clear about the home's complaint procedure.