Z & M Care Limited -12 Lyndhurst Road

12 Lyndhurst Road is a residential care home for people living with a learning disability and/or autism and other complex needs. It is registered to provide personal care for up to seven people; at the time of inspection the home was full. Accommodation is provided over three floors and communal areas include a lounge and dining room and kitchen. People have their own rooms with access to gardens at the rear of the home. The house is adjoined with a care home that accommodates 37 residents. People have free access to the adjoining house next door which is owned by the same provider.

People’s experience of using this service:

We spoke with people and we observed they were comfortable in the presence of staff and in their home. Throughout the inspection, we observed positive interactions between people and staff. Staff spent time with people as and when they wanted. Staff respected people and enabled people to be independent. People were treated with dignity, patience and kindness. People were supported to achieve good outcomes.

People were safe and were supported by staff who were trained to recognise the signs of any potential abuse. Staff had been trained in safeguarding and knew what action to take if they had any concerns about people’s safety or welfare. People’s risks were identified and assessed appropriately. Staff knew how to keep people safe in an emergency such as a fire. At the time of the inspection no accidents or incidents were recorded. Lessons were learned from previous inspections and external assessments and audits were used to improve the service. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs, to enable them to engage with activities, access the community and to live their lives independently. People were supported by staff whose suitability was checked at recruitment. People’s medicines were managed safely.

Before they came to live at the home, people’s needs were fully assessed to ensure that staff could meet their needs appropriately. Staff completed training and were experienced in their roles to provide effective care to people. Staff received regular supervisions and an annual appraisal.

People contributed to the planning of menus and staff knew people’s dietary requirements. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals and services. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were comfortable in the company of the managers and support staff. Staff felt supported by the managers and felt confident that any suggestions or concerns would be listened to and acted upon. People were asked for their feedback about the home through surveys, questionnaires and at meetings if they wanted to attend. A range of quality assurance systems, done internally and by external professionals, measured and monitored the quality of care and the service overall.

People received personalised care that was tailored to meet their individual needs, preferences and choices. Care plans were detailed and guided staff about people’s needs and how to meet them. Staff encouraged people in decisions relating to their care, staff supported people to make choices and to live their lives as they wished. No complaints had been received at the time of the inspection. No-one living at the home required end of life care at the time of the inspection.

This service met the characteristics of Good. More information is in the ‘Detailed Findings’ below.

Rating at the last inspection: Good. The last inspection report was published on 25 July 2016.

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection that was scheduled to take place in line with Care Quality Commission (CQC) scheduling guidelines for adult social care services.

Follow up: We will review the service in line with our methodology for 'Good' services.

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 happy and relaxed with staff. They said they felt safe and there were sufficient staff to support them. One person told us, “Very safe, because there are lots of people to look after me”. When staff were recruited, their employment history was checked and references obtained. Checks were also undertaken to ensure new staff were safe to work within the care sector. Staff were knowledgeable and trained in safeguarding adults and what action they should take if they suspected abuse was taking place.

Medicines were managed safely and in accordance with current regulations and guidance. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines had been stored, administered, audited and reviewed appropriately.

People were being supported to make decisions in their best interests. The registered manager and staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Accidents and incidents were recorded appropriately and steps taken to minimise the risk of similar events happening in the future. Risks associated with the environment and equipment had been identified and managed. Emergency procedures were in place in the event of a fire and people knew what to do, as did the staff.

Staff had received essential training and there were opportunities for additional training specific to the needs of people, which included diabetes management and the care of people with dementia. Staff had received both one-to-one and group supervision meetings with their manager, and formal personal development plans, such as annual appraisals were in place. One member of staff told us, “Training is good, it’s always available. The registered manager is always chasing us to go on more training”.

People were encouraged and supported to eat and drink well. There was a varied daily choice of meals and people were able to give feedback and have choice in what they ate and drank. Special dietary requirements were met, and people’s weight was monitored, with their permission. Health care was accessible for people and appointments were made for regular check-ups as needed.

People’s individual care plans included information about who was important to them, such as their family and friends and we saw that people took part in lots of activities in the home and in the community. Activities included bowling, music nights, cooking and film nights. People were also encouraged to stay in touch with their families and receive visitors.

People felt well looked after and supported and they were encouraged to be as independent as possible. We observed friendly and genuine relationships had developed between people and staff. One person told us, “They [staff] are very kind”.

People were encouraged to express their views and had completed surveys. Feedback received showed people were satisfied overall, and felt staff were friendly and helpful. People also said they felt listened to and any concerns or issues they raised were addressed.

Staff were asked for their opinions on the service and whether they were happy in their work. They felt supported within their roles, describing an ‘open door’ management approach, where managers were always available to discuss suggestions and address problems or concerns. The provider undertook quality assurance reviews to measure and monitor the standard of the service and drive improvement.

One person who uses the service told us 'I like living in the house, the food is nice and the chef is good'. Another person we spoke with told us 'I feel safe and happy here, I love it here'.

Staff we spoke with enjoyed working at 12 Lyndhurst Road. One person told us 'It can be challenging but I really enjoy my job'. Another person told us 'we really promote independence and daily living skills here in the home'. If staff needed support they felt management was approachable with an open door policy.

Comments we read from a recent quality survey included 'I can do what I like to do, it is good here' and 'the home looks after me well'.

We also looked at care and support plans, risk assessments, staff records and policies and procedures.

We observed good rapport between staff and people living at 12 Lyndhurst Road. We saw that staff were kind, respectful and understood the needs of individuals. Staff told us they enjoyed their work.

The care planning process was person centred and regular reviews took place. Staff said, 'We involve people by finding out about the person'. We also found that the provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.