Leeds Jewish Welfare Board - 248 Lidgett Lane

248 Lidget Lane- Leeds Jewish welfare board is a 5- bedded care home for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. On the day of our visit there was 5 people living in the home.

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. 'Right support, right care, right culture' is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

People's experience of using this service and what we found

Right Support:

Staff supported people to access health and social care support in the community. They supported people being involved in maintaining their own health and wellbeing where possible. Staff communicated with people in ways that met their needs. 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.

Right Care:

The service worked together with healthcare professionals to ensure people's needs could be met. Care was person-centred and promoted people's dignity, privacy and human rights. Staff understood how to protect people from poor care and abuse. Staff were appropriately trained on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to report safeguarding concerns. Relatives told us their loved ones were safe living at the service, however we received mixed feedback from relatives regarding appropriate care, with some stating they felt their relative was receiving the right care and others that there had been gaps, relatives told us this had started to improve for one person where concerns had been raised regarding encouragement to eat and weight loss. This had been addressed and the person had recently gained weight and lessons had been learnt regarding how to support the person when eating and drinking. Care records contained risk assessments with clear guidance for staff to follow. Medicines were not always managed to ensure complete safety. Staff had not always been recruited as required. Issues raised had been identified by the registered manager and were being actioned prior to inspection. The premises were clean and well maintained.

Right Culture:

The registered manager promoted a person-centred environment and people experienced good outcomes. Relatives spoke positively about the new management team and staff. People received good quality care, and support because staff knew them well and could meet their needs and wishes. Staff understood people's needs in relation to their strengths, impairments or sensitivities people with a learning disability and/or autistic people may have. One relative felt that staff did not have appropriate training on how to support autistic people, however the staff training matrix evidenced that this had been undertaken and when asked staff had a good understanding. Under new management this previous gap in training and knowledge has been addressed. This enabled people to receive compassionate and empowering care that was tailored to their needs.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection

At the last inspection we rated this service as good (published on 21 September 2018).

Why we inspected

We inspected due to the length of time since the last inspection.

This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe and Well Led.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information, we may inspect sooner.

We found the following examples of good practice.

The home had a range of policies and procedures to manage any risks associated with the COVID pandemic.

There were sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) available for people. Hand sanitiser and hand washing facilities were readily available throughout the home. Staff had been trained in infection prevention and control (IPC) and the use of PPE.

Daily, weekly and monthly cleaning schedules were in place, which included touch point and deep cleaning.

A programme of COVID testing for both people living in the home and staff was undertaken in line with current government guidance. Appropriate procedures were in place should anyone display any symptoms or test positive. All visitors, including healthcare professionals, were subject to a range of screening procedures. This included showing evidence of vaccination and an up to date negative COVID test.

Staff supported the social and emotional wellbeing of residents and had done so throughout the pandemic. Residents were supported to attend external events taking into consideration COVID related risk assessments and testing.

Leeds Jewish Welfare Board – 248 Lidgett Lane provides 24-hour care and support to five adults with learning disabilities and is registered to provide accommodation and personal care. The service operates with the cultural needs of Jewish people in mind, however it also caters to the needs of non-Jewish people.

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. The service conforms with these requirements.

There was a manager in post, however they were in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission at the time of the 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.

There were enough trained staff to meet people’s needs and staff were recruited safely. Some relatives commented that recent changes in staff personnel had an impact on continuity however the service’s recruitment process involved people meeting prospective new staff and approving of them before they were offered a role.

Staff were trained in medicines administration and medicines were managed safely. Staff were also trained to recognised signs of abuse and were able to describe how they would follow the provider’s safeguarding and whistleblowing policies.

There were appropriate health and safety checks in place and there were adequate supplies of personal protective equipment to ensure that staff were able to minimise the risk of infections.

Staff told us they received an adequate induction, training and support from the service. The manager monitored staff performance through spot checks.

People told us staff were kind, caring and compassionate. The service had a warm and jovial atmosphere. People were supported to maintain independent lives, ranging from choosing what they wanted to eat and wear to working in the community and earning a wage. Staff were able to describe how they would protect people’s dignity and privacy.

Care plans contained detailed person-centred guidance on how to care for people in a way they wanted. People were supported to maintain active social lives and participate in activities relevant to their hobbies and interests.

There was a complaints policy and procedure in place, complaints were responded to appropriately and people told us they knew how to raise a complaint.

The service had adequate quality assurance processes in place to monitor and improve on service delivery. The manager was supported by the provider to attend meetings with other managers and gather feedback on good practice.

The service engaged positively with people and their relatives to gather their feedback and make improvements to the service.

Leeds Jewish Welfare Board -248 Lidgett Lane provides 24 hour care and support to five adults with learning disabilities and is registered to provide accommodation and personal care. The home operates in accordance with Jewish cultural requirements, but also caters for the needs of people from other faiths. The house is situated in a residential part of the Leeds 17 area close to many local amenities such as shops, doctors, dentists, churches and Synagogues.

At the time of the inspection, the service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC); however, they had left the service some months previously. A new manager had been appointed and was in the process of making their application to become the registered manager. 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 told us and indicated by gestures and body language that they felt safe in their home. Staff could describe and understood their responsibilities to support people and to protect them from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff were recruited safely which ensured they were of a good character to work with people who used this service. People had plans in place to manage risks, which staff understood and followed.

People received their medicines as prescribed and safe systems were in place to manage people's medicines. Staff were trained in medication administration and their competency was checked regularly.

The home and equipment were regularly checked and the provider had plans in place to keep people safe during significant incidents, such as a fire. People who used the service told us they had regular fire drills and this was important to them. One person told us, “We practice and we need to get out quick”. However, the five year periodic safety check of the electrical installation in the home was overdue and had not been checked since 2008. This had put people’s safety at risk and we made a recommendation to the provider about this.

There were enough staff to meet people's needs. People received support from staff who showed kindness and compassion. People’s dignity and privacy was protected Staff understood people's individual needs in relation to their care. Support plans were overall; person centred and reflected individual's preferences.

People were supported to pursue a wide and diverse variety of social activities relevant to their needs, wishes, culture and interests. Arrangements were in place for people to maintain links with the local community, friends and family.

The manager and staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They had made appropriate referrals to the relevant authorities to ensure people's rights were protected.

People received care and support from staff that had the skills and knowledge to understand their role. Staff training was updated regularly and staff had regular supervision that helped identify training needs and improve the quality of care.

People chose and assisted in the preparation of their food and drink and were supported to maintain a balanced diet where this was required. People had access to healthcare facilities and support that met their needs.

The service had a number of ways of involving people and getting their suggestions for how the service could be improved. People who used the service had been involved in planning and reviewing the care provided. They were also involved in recruitment and some aspects of auditing.

There was an effective complaints procedure for people to raise their concerns. There were systems of audit in place to check, monitor and improve the quality of the service. However, these checks had failed to identify the issue we noted regarding the electrical safety certificate.

The provider, manager and staff were committed and enthusiastic about providing a person centred service for people.

We were able to communicate verbally with three people who used the service. When we asked them if they liked the home and the staff who supported them, they told us they were very happy living in the home and were well cared for by the staff. One person said, 'This is my home, this is my room, I like to live here, it is nice, I am happy.' Another person told us, 'I don't want to go anywhere else, the staff are good here, they care about us.'

One member of staff said, 'The manager is absolutely great, they put the people who live here first all the time. The residents' welfare is our main priority.' Another said, 'We have all been told about the Whistleblowing Policy. I wouldn't hesitate to use it if I even suspected someone was at risk but I have never had any concerns working here.'

The home had enough suitability qualified and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

The home had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.

People who used the service said they were happy living at the home and they were well looked after. People's comments included:

'Very nice here.'

'I keep busy and I like that.'

'I have a very nice bedroom.'

People we spoke with said they understood their care and support plans and that staff had explained things well to them.

We saw that people received care and support in an environment that was clean and there were systems in place to minimise the risk of infections. One person said, 'It is all kept nice here.'

People who used the service were very complimentary about the staff. Their comments included:

'I like my key worker very much.'

'Staff are very nice and very good.'

We saw that people who used the service were responded to promptly when they asked for any support or assistance, for example, help to make a telephone call. People who used the service said they would speak to staff or the manager if they had any concerns.