You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

This inspection took place on 24 October 2017 and was unannounced. The Drive is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing, or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The Drive accommodates up to 12 people with learning and physical disabilities in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection there were 11 people living at the home.

The home had a registered manager in place. 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 our last comprehensive inspection of the service in September 2016 we found a breach of regulations because medicines were not safely managed. We also found improvement was required to ensure the service complied fully with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), and the provider’s quality assurance systems were not consistently effective in identifying issues or driving improvements.

Following the inspection the provider wrote to us to tell us the action they had taken to address the issues we had identified in respect of medicines management. We conducted a focused inspection of the service in February 2017 to check that they had followed their action plan and found that medicines were safely managed at the service, and they were meeting legal requirements.

At this inspection we found the registered manager and provider had made improvements to the service’s quality assurance systems, and action had been taken to address any issues identified through the checks and audits conducted by staff. Improvements had also been made to ensure staff followed the requirements of the MCA where people lacked capacity to make decisions for themselves.

Risks to people had been assessed and plans put in place to manage identified risks safely. Staff were aware of people’s risk assessments and the action to take to support them in safely. There were sufficient staff deployed at the service to meet people’s needs and the provider followed safe recruitment practices when employing new staff.

Medicines were stored securely, and administered and recorded appropriately. People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff were aware of the types of abuse and knew the action to take if they suspected abuse had occurred. The provider had also sought to ensure people were only deprived of their liberty in line with the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), where this was in their best interests.

Staff received an induction when they started work at the service and were supported in their roles through regular supervision and training. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and to access a range of healthcare services when needed. Staff treated people with dignity and respected their privacy. People told us that staff treated them kindly and we observed caring interactions between staff and the people living at the service.

People were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. They had support plans in place which had been developed based on an assessment of their individual needs and which reflected their preferences. Where appropriate, relatives told us they had been consulted in the development of people’s support plans. People were also supported to take part in a range of activities in support of their interests.

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place which gave guidance to people on how to raise concerns. People and relatives knew how to make a complaint and expressed confidence that any issues they raised would be addressed.

People spoke positively about the registered manager and t

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was safe.

Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely and appropriately.

Risks to people had been assessed and action was taken to ensure identified risks were managed safely.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs. The provider followed safe recruitment practices when employing new staff.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff were aware of the types of abuse that could occur and the action to take if they suspected abuse.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were aware of the importance of seeking consent from people when offering them support. The service complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff received an induction when they started work at the service, and were supported in their roles through regular supervision and training.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet.

People were supported to access a range of healthcare services when needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness and compassion.

Staff treated people with dignity and respected their privacy.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was responsive.

People had been involved in developing their support plans which reflected their individual needs and preferences.

People were supported to maintain the relationships that were important to them, and to take part in a range of activities.

The provider had a complaint policy and procedure in place which gave guidance on how to raise concerns. People and relatives expressed confidence that any issues they raised would be addressed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was well-led.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Action had been taken to address any issues identified through the provider's quality assurance processes.

People and relatives told us the service was well managed and spoke positively about the improvements made by the registered manager. Staff told us the management team gave them appropriate support and guidance, and that they worked well as a team.

The provider sought people's views and acted on feedback to make improvements at the service.