You are here

East View Housing Management Limited - 1 Johnson Close Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 September 2016

This inspection was carried out on 25 August 2016 and was announced. We gave short notice of this inspection due to the needs of people living at the service. This service provides care and accommodation for up to four people with learning disabilities and autism. Three people lived at the service and one person was due to move to the service at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to raise an alert if they had any concerns. Risk assessments were centred on the needs of the individual. Each risk assessment included clear measures to reduce identified risks and guidance for staff to follow or make sure people were protected from harm. Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to identify how the risks of recurrence could be reduced.

There was a sufficient number of staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Thorough recruitment procedures were in place which included the checking of references and personal identification.

Medicines were stored, administered, recorded and disposed of safely and correctly. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant records that were accurate.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Appropriate applications to restrict people’s freedom had been submitted and the least restrictive options had been considered.

Staff sought and obtained people’s consent before they helped them. Staff training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and DoLS was effective. People’s mental capacity was appropriately assessed about particular decisions. When necessary, appropriate meetings were held to make decisions in people’s best interests, as per the requirements of the MCA.

Staff received regular one to one supervision sessions and all essential training for their role. The staff supported people to have meals that were in sufficient quantity and met people’s needs and choices. Staff knew about and provided for people’s dietary preferences and restrictions.

Information was provided using accessible language and contained pictures about menus, activities and how to complain, to help people understand this information.

Staff knew each person well and understood how to meet their support and communication needs. Staff communicated effectively with people and treated them with kindness and respect.

People were promptly referred to health care professionals when needed.

Personal records included people’s individual plans of care, life history, likes and dislikes and preferred activities. People’s individual assessments and care plans were reviewed monthly or when their needs changed. The staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves.

People were involved in the planning of activities and a varied and individualised activities programme was in place which met people’s preferences. People’s feedback was actively sought at house meetings and review meetings.

Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and they had confidence in their leadership. The registered manager was open and transparent in their approach. They placed emphasis and priority on the person centred needs of people at the service.

There was a system of monitoring checks and audits to identify any improvements that needed to be made. The management team acted on the results of these checks to improve the quality of the service and care provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 September 2016

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to raise an alert if they had any concerns. Staff knew how to refer to the local authority if they had any concerns or any suspicion of abuse taking place.

There was a sufficient number of staff deployed to ensure that people’s needs were consistently met to keep them safe. Safe recruitment procedures were followed in practice.

Medicines were administered safely. There was an appropriate system in place for the monitoring and management of accidents and incidents.

Risk assessments were centred on individual needs and there were effective measures in place to reduce risks to people.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 September 2016

The service was effective.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and about the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The documentation in regard to MCA processes was appropriate and demonstrated understanding about the processes to follow in line with legal requirements.

The registered manager had submitted appropriate applications in regard to the DoLS and had considered the least restrictive options to keep people safe.

The staff supported people to have meals that were in sufficient quantity and met people’s needs and choices. Staff knew about and provided for people’s dietary preferences and restrictions.

People were referred to healthcare professionals promptly when needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 September 2016

The service was caring.

Staff communicated effectively with people and treated them with kindness, compassion and respect.

Staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged them to do as much for themselves as they were able to.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 September 2016

The service was responsive to people’s individual needs.

The delivery of care was in line with people’s care plans and risk assessments. Each person had an activities programme that was inclusive, flexible and suitable for their individual needs.

People or their legal representatives were invited to be involved with the review of people’s care plans. People’s care was personalised to reflect their wishes and what was important to them.

The service sought feedback from people and their representatives about the overall quality of the service. People’s views were listened to and acted on.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 September 2016

The service was well-led.

The registered manager welcomed people and staff suggestions for improvement and acted on these. Staff had confidence in the registered manager’s style of leadership.

There were audit systems in place to ensure that essential standards of care were met.

The registered manager placed emphasis and priority on meeting people’s needs in a person centred way. There was an open and positive culture which focussed on people.