You are here

Archived: Applewood House & Apartments Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 March 2016

We carried out an unannounced inspection of the service on 9 February 2016. Applewood House & Apartments is registered to accommodate up to thirteen people and specialises in providing care and support for people who live with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were twelve people using the service.

On the day of our inspection there was 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.

The risk to people’s safety was reduced because staff had attended safeguarding adults training, could identify the different types of abuse, and knew the procedure for reporting concerns. Risk assessments had been completed in areas where people’s safety could be at risk. People had the freedom to live their lives as they wanted to. Staff were recruited in a safe way and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs and to keep them safe.

Accidents and incidents were investigated. Assessments of the risks associated with the environment which people lived were carried out and people had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) in place. People’s medicines were stored, handled and administered safely.

People were supported by staff who received an induction, were well trained and received regular assessments of their work.

The registered manager ensured the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) had been applied when decisions had been made for people. However there were a small number of best interest documentation that were not available within people’s support records. Staff ensured people were given choices about their support needs and day to day life. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been applied for and where applications had been granted, appropriate safeguards were in place.

People spoke highly of the food and were supported to follow a healthy and balanced diet. People’s day to day health needs were met by the staff and external professionals. Referrals to relevant health services were made where needed.

Staff supported people in a kind and caring way. Staff understood people’s needs and listened to and acted upon their views. Staff responded quickly to people who had become distressed.

People were able to contribute to decisions about their care and support needs. People were provided with an independent advocate, if appropriate, to support them with decisions about their care. Staff understood how to maintain people’s dignity. People’s friends and relatives were able to visit whenever they wanted to.

People’s care records were person centred and focused on what was important to them. Care records were regularly reviewed. People were encouraged to take part in activities that were important to them and were provided with the information they needed if they wished to make a complaint.

There was a positive atmosphere at the home. The registered manager had an ‘open door’ policy and welcomed people to talk with them. People spoke highly of the registered manager. The registered manager understood their responsibilities and ensured staff felt able to contribute to the development of the service. People who used the service were encouraged to provide their feedback on how the service could be improved.

There were a number of quality assurance processes in place that regularly assessed the quality and effectiveness of the support provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 March 2016

The service was safe.

People were supported by staff who attended safeguarding adults training and knew the procedure for reporting concerns.

The registered manager had the processes in place to ensure that all accidents and incidents were appropriately investigated. Assessments of the risks to people�s safety were conducted and regularly reviewed.

Regular reviews of the environment in which people lived, along with plans to evacuate people safely in an emergency were carried out.

People were supported by an appropriate number of staff to keep them safe. Safe recruitment processes were in place.

People�s medicines were stored, handled and administered safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 March 2016

The service was effective.

Staff were well trained, felt supported by the registered manager and had the quality of their work regularly assessed.

People�s records showed the principles of the MCA had been adhered to when a decision had been made for them. However a small number of best interest documentations were not in place.

People were supported to follow a healthy and balanced diet and they spoke positively about the food.

People�s day to day health needs were met by staff and external professionals and referrals to relevant health services were made where needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 March 2016

The service was caring.

Staff supported people in a kind, caring and respectful way.

Staff understood people�s needs and listened to and acted upon their views.

People were provided with the information they needed that enabled them to contribute to decisions about their support. Where needed, independent advocates supported people with making important decisions.

People�s dignity was maintained by staff and friends and relatives were able to visit whenever they wanted to.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 March 2016

The service was responsive.

People�s care records were written in a person centred way. People were involved with the planning of their care and support.

People were encouraged to do the things that were important to them and were provided with the information they needed if they wished to make a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 March 2016

The service was well-led.

People were encouraged to provide feedback on how the service could be improved.

People spoke highly of the registered manager. The registered manager understood their responsibilities and ensured staff knew what was required of them.

Regular audits and assessments of the quality and effectiveness of the care and support provided for people were carried out.