You are here

Commonside Care Limited - 73 Commonside Good


Inspection carried out on 13 February 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

73 Commonside is a care home that accommodates up to six people living with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the home.

The care service has been developed and designed 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. 'Registering the Right Support' CQC policy.

What life is like for people using this service:

People received safe care and support as the staff team had been trained to recognise signs of abuse or risk and understood what to do to safely support people. People received safe support with their medicines by staff who had received training and who had been assessed as competent. The provider had systems in place to respond to any medicine errors. The provider completed regular checks to ensure that people were receiving the right medicine at the right time. Staff members followed effective infection prevention and control procedures. When risks to people’s health and welfare were identified, the provider acted to minimise the likelihood of occurrence.

The provider supported staff in providing effective care for people through person-centred care planning, training, supervision. People were promptly referred to additional healthcare services when required. People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and had choice regarding their food and drinks. The environment where people lived was well maintained and suited people’s needs and preferences.

People received help and support from a kind and compassionate staff team with whom they had positive relationships. People were supported by staff members who were aware of their individual protected characteristics like age and gender and disability. People were supported to develop their independence and actively took part in decisions about where they lived.

People participated in a range of activities that met their individual choices and preferences and that they found interesting and stimulating. People were provided with information in a way that they could understand. Policies and guidelines important to people were provided in an easy to read format with pictures to aid their understanding.

The provider had systems in place to encourage and respond to any complaints or compliments from people or visitors.

The provider understood the requirements of their registration with the Care Quality Commission and was meeting the legal requirements. The provider had effective systems to monitor the quality of the service they provided and to drive improvements where needed. The provider had good links with the local community which people benefited from.

More information in Detailed Findings below.

Rating at last inspection: Good (date last report published 25 January 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection, ‘Good.’ At this inspection we found the service remained good in all key questions with an overall rating of ‘Good.’

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor all intelligence received about the service to ensure the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.

Inspection carried out on 27 November 2015.

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 27 November 2015, was unannounced and was carried out by one inspector. The provider is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people. People living at the home have a learning disability and some people have additional sensory impairments. On the day of our inspection five people lived at the home. At our last inspection in May 2014, the provider was meeting all the regulations we assessed.

There was a registered manager in post and she was present during 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People felt safe using the service and risks to their safety had been identified. Staff knew how to support people safely and had training in how to recognise and report abuse.

People were supported to take part in everyday living tasks and to do the things that they enjoyed. The risks associated with these activities were well managed so that people could undertake these safely and without any restrictions.

People had their medicines when they needed them and staff were trained to do this safely.

The staffing arrangements were flexible and ensured that people had the support they needed both to meet their needs and in order to pursue their interests.

Staff had received a full induction, appropriate training and support and were knowledgeable about the needs of people.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including when balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care. The associated safeguards to the Act require providers to submit applications when needed to the local authority for approval to deprive someone of their liberty. The registered manager and staff we spoke with understood the principles of the MCA and associated safeguards. They understood the importance of making decisions for people using formal legal safeguards.

People were actively involved in choosing their meals, shopping and cooking so that they had control over what they ate.

People had health action plans which showed how their health needs were met. They had experienced positive outcomes regarding their health because specialist health professionals had been consulted and staff took preventative action to keep them fit and healthy.

People had positive and meaningful relationships with staff who they had known for many years. People confirmed staff were always kind, attentive and caring.

We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect. Staff observed people for non-verbal communication so that they could meet their needs. Staff had supported people to express their views on the care provided and this had led to their care being tailored to meet their needs.

Staff knew people well and understood their individual needs and preferences. They knew how people communicated their needs and if people needed support in certain areas of their life.

People were supported to pursue their individual interests and hobbies with the support of staff.

There was a complaints policy in place and staff were aware how they could support people to communicate if they were unhappy about something. We also saw that people had named family or representatives to advocate for them.

Regular checks had been undertaken to maintain the quality of the service.  The registered manager and director had actively looked at ways to benefit the lives of people living at the home.  They had organised staffing to accommodate people’s lifestyles and choices. People were happy about how the home was managed and staff had the support and training to be able to provide a service that was based on promoting people’s quality of life. This meant that people were benefiting from a service that was continually looking at how it could provide better care for people.

Inspection carried out on 13 May 2014

During a routine inspection

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who use the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records. We spoke with three of the five people using the service, two members of staff, the manager and director. We looked at five people's care records and toured the premises.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with told us they felt safe and happy at the service. One person told us, �I love living here the staff are great they make sure I am safe when I am doing activities in the house or going out�. A relative had chosen the service based on findings from the website. It was the view of the relative that the service: �Had a proven reputation of being safe, caring and providing people with lifestyle choices�.

We saw that systems were in place to make sure that staff learned from events such as complaints, accidents and incidents. We saw people were supported to improve their personal safety by for example sourcing specialist advice from a range of health professionals from the community learning disability team. People benefitted from having care plans that supported their specialist health care needs. These ensured their safety and welfare.

Where people lacked capacity to be involved in planning their care or making decisions that affected their safety, we saw that staff worked within the guidelines of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This is legislation that makes provision relating to persons who lack capacity, and how decisions should be made in their best interests. We saw that best interest decisions had been made on behalf of people to ensure their health needs were met and their safety managed.

We saw that people were protected against the risk of infection because staff followed infection prevention and control procedures. We saw the facilities were clean, fresh and ventilated. Cleaning schedules were in place to promote infection control standards and staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE). One person told us, �I love our house it is clean and tidy and we help with the jobs�.

We found that the safety and welfare of people using this service was protected because the provider had followed safe recruitment practices. There was a record of work history, previous conduct and references and checks by the Disclosure and Barring Service, (DBS). These checks ensure that staff are suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

Is the service effective?

We found that the manager and staff were effective in meeting people�s needs. For example people had a personal plan of care which was regularly discussed and planned with them. This meant people�s desires and wishes were met as well as their needs. We saw that care plans meant that staff had the information they needed to promote people�s wellbeing and chosen lifestyle.

We found the staff recruitment procedures had ensured staff did not work at the service until all the safety checks had been carried out. We saw the interview process was effective in selecting staff with the right attitude and personality this meant that staff were effectively matched to the needs of the people using the service.

We saw that staff received an induction and ongoing supervision to ensure they could reflect on their practice and develop the skills necessary to effectively meet people�s needs.

Is the service caring?

We saw staff interact with people in a caring and responsive way. We saw staff knew and understood people�s characters and their preferences and could anticipate their support needs.

People had support to identify their interests and the things they wanted to do. We saw care plans fully reflected people�s lifestyle choices and the support they needed to pursue these. People we spoke with told us about the activities they participated in and how they enjoyed these. One person told us, �I like the staff they take me out to places I like, I cook, and go shopping and I�ve been to concerts and on holiday I love living here�. Another person new to the service told us, �It was different at first but I do lots of stuff now, the staff are good they talk to me, and help me�.

Is the service responsive?

We found that the provider had regularly asked and acted upon the comments and views of people using the service and their relative�s. We saw people had been supported to join in meetings, fill in questionnaires and attend meetings about their care. People had daily access to the directors of the service and told us they were confident anything they raised would be acted upon. We saw evidence of continuous improvements led by people�s desires to follow their own lifestyle choices. We saw that within the daily routines necessary in running a home, people were provided with choices for example the times of personal routines, sufficient staffing to support them in external activities and transport to access community facilities.

Is the service well-led?

The service was led by a registered manager and director. We saw that they had systems in place to ensure good standards of care. They ensured their staff selection and recruitment procedures helped them to recruit and match staff to the service. We saw staff were regularly supervised and that competency checks were carried out to ensure staff performed at the required standard. Staff told us they had leadership, training and support to do their jobs well

We saw that a number of audits were carried out in order to assess the quality of care provided. The provider had ensured that the views of people using the service, their families and external professionals had been regularly sought to ensure people experienced a quality service.

Inspection carried out on 17 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We met five of the six people living there, and spoke with the manager, owner and a member of care staff. Some people were unable to express their views verbally, so we spent time observing how staff supported them.

People had been supported to provide their consent to their care. One person told us, �If I don�t understand stuff the staff explain, they always ask me first�.

Staff supported people to lead a lifestyle of their choosing. People�s care had been planned with them so they did the things they enjoyed and desired. People�s health needs had been planned and met.

People lived in a comfortable home and facilities suited their needs.

Staff had received specialist training to safely support the people living there. Staff were very positive about the support and guidance they received, one staff said, �The standards are rightly, very high, it is a great place to work�.

Inspection carried out on 13 August 2012

During a routine inspection

We saw that staff had access to support plans and risk assessments to promote their understanding of people�s needs. We saw that an advocate had been sourced to represent their views. This ensured that their views and or decisions made about their care, treatment and support were being promoted and protected.

We saw that staff treated people with respect; for instance supporting them with their day to day lifestyle choices, ensuring they could contribute to their care planning and making sure information was presented to them in a way that people with complex communication needs, could understand.

We saw people were encouraged to maintain their independence and develop new skills. Two of the people we spoke with made the following comments; �I love the food, and the staff are really nice, I have loads of friends�. �They help with jobs and clubs and going to nice places, we�ve been on holiday, we go abroad every year�. �We tell them what we like and they try to arrange interesting things to do�.

We found that people were supported to maintain activities that were interesting and stimulating, and they were fully involved in choosing options so that they had a meaningful lifestyle.

We saw that people had a good rapport with staff and staff knew their individual needs. We saw that staff received a range of training so that they had up to date knowledge and skills in order to support the people who lived there. We saw that staffing levels were appropriate to meet people�s needs. The provider was aware of the changing needs of one person and how this may impact on staffing levels.

There were systems in place to monitor the home. We saw that people had been actively consulted about their views to ensure they received a quality service.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)