We carried out a review of the data available to us about Stroud Court Community Trust 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 Stroud Court Community Trust, you can give feedback on this service.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated Good:
Feedback from people’s relatives was overwhelmingly positive. They complimented the caring nature of staff and felt that the service was well-led. They praised the approach of staff and stated that they felt their relatives were safe living at Stroud Court Community Trust. Staff understood the values and vision of the service. The senior management team had reviewed the quality of people’s lives and were making progress in their plans to update people’s accommodation. They were implementing a new approach to encourage people to be fully involved in their daily activities.
People’s needs had been assessed and their support requirements and preferences were recorded in detail to provide staff with the guidance they needed to support people. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The service’s policies and systems supported this practice. Effective systems were in place to manage people’s medicines so that they received them safely and on time. People were supported to access health care services and to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
Sufficient numbers of staff were available to ensure people’s well-being and for them to safely be involved in activities. New staff were suitably vetted and trained before they supported people. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and had been trained to carry out their role. Staff told us they felt supported and trained and had access to the information they needed to support people. They understood their responsibility to report concerns and poor practices.
The registered manager was supported by a senior management team and board of trustees. The service had an open and progressive culture to improve the quality of lives for people. Systems were in place to identify shortfalls in the service and drive improvement. People and their relative’s views were valued and acted if any concerns had been identified.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Stroud Court Community Trust Limited is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 39 people with Autistic Spectrum Disorder.
At the time of our inspection 34 people were using the service. Two people using the service each lived on their own, 21 people lived in four other houses with between four and six people in each house, 11 people lived within the main house. The main house also contained a communal lobby area and office space for senior staff and administrative staff.
This inspection was unannounced and took place on 12 and 13 August 2015.
There was 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.
People were safe. The registered manager and staff understood their role and responsibilities to keep people safe from harm. People were supported to take risks, promote their independence and follow their interests. Risks were assessed and plans put in place to keep people safe. There were enough staff to safely provide care and support to people. Checks were carried out on staff before they started to work with people to assess their suitability. Medicines were well managed and the provider was taking action to make medicines management even safer.
The service people received was effective. Staff received regular supervision and the training needed to meet people’s needs. The service complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to make choices regarding food and drink and their fluid and nutritonal intake was monitored. Arrangements were made for people to see their GP and other healthcare professionals when they needed to do so. The provider had plans to further improvements to the physical environment.
People received a service that was caring. They were cared for and supported by staff who knew them well. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People’s views were actively sought and they were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Information was provided in ways that were easy to understand. People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends.
People received person centred care and support. They were offered a range of activities both at the service and in the local community. People were encouraged to make their views known and the service responded by making changes.
The service was well led. The registered manager, senior staff and trustees provided good leadership and management. The vision and culture of the service was clearly communicated and understood by staff. The quality of service people received was monitored on a regular basis and where shortfalls were identified they were acted upon.
The registered manager and support staff were available throughout the inspection and were very knowledgeable about people in their care, the policies, procedures and systems in place to ensure the continued smooth running of the houses.
We visited two houses and spent time in the communal lounge areas and conservatory area with people who lived at the houses so that we could observe the direct care, attention and support that they received. We observed there was constant interaction between staff and people in the houses. People were relaxed, happy and comfortable in each other's company.
People had their comments and complaints listened to and acted on, without the fear that they would be discriminated against for making a complaint. People told us "If I feel upset and unhappy I know the staff would help me' and 'I have told staff when I have been unhappy'.
There were sufficient staff to support people in the units and enable them to take part in a variety of community activities. One person told us 'I like living here, I like everything. I am doing cooking with [staff member] and I have my social outing".
Through a range of evidence we found people were protected from the risk of infection. There were policies, procedures and staff training to deal with communicable diseases and infection control; the three units we visited were of a good standard of cleanliness and there were regular cleaning schedules in place.
Overall we found comprehensive and up to date records for people who use services and records were kept securely. However, it was difficult to easily see evidence of staff supervision as there was inconsistency in where supervision notes were held (some on the units, some in the main office).