Archived: Stanway Close and Greenway Road

The care service has been developed in line with the values that underpin ‘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.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good

People were safe at the service because recruitment, staffing, medicine management, infection control and upkeep of the premises protected people from unsafe situations and harm. Individual risks to people were assessed and managed with as little restriction to the person as possible.

Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and discrimination. They were knowledgeable and knew to report any concerns and ensure action was taken. The registered manager worked with the local authority safeguarding adults team to protect people.

Staff praised the training they received. They were supported to be skilled and efficient in the roles. Arrangements for staff supervision and support, and the availability of the registered manager, enabled them to be effective support workers.

People’s legal rights were understood and upheld. People’s health care needs were met. A health care professional said the service “Strived for an increase in a person’s quality of life”.

The premises provided people with a variety of spaces for their use. Flats and bedrooms were very individual and based on the person’s preferences. There were arrangements in place to upgrade the premises as necessary.

People received a varied diet according to their likes and dislikes. Specialist diets were understood and being met.

People’s privacy and choice were fully supported. Staff promoted people’s dignity. Staff were kind and caring and all interactions between staff and people using the service were respectful and friendly.

Support plans were detailed and reviewed with the person when possible, staff who support the person, external professionals (as necessary) and family members. Staff looked to identify best practice and use this to people’s benefit. Staff worked with, and took advice from, experts within the provider organisation and external health care professionals.

People had a variety of meaningful activities available to them according to their preferences. They were encouraged to lead interesting lives. Multimedia was used as a resource to support people’s understanding.

The service was well organised. People’s views were sought and opportunities taken to improve the service. Staff were supervised, supported and clear what was expected of them. Audits and checks were carried out in-house and through the provider so any problem could be identified and rectified.

The registered manager understood and met their legal responsibilities.

We spoke with some of the people living at the home. Some people were unable to fully express their views and throughout the day we observed these people.

The home had a very friendly, open and welcoming atmosphere. Throughout our visit we saw that people who lived at the home appeared comfortable and at ease with the staff who supported them. Relatives told us that they could approach staff with any concerns and one said they could 'come and talk about anything'.

Staff treated people in a respectful, dignified and professional manner.

Each person had a plan of care that contained all the information required to meet care needs fully. Relatives were happy with the care people received and commented about the staff "staff are fantastic", "very good" and "they have a good care team".

People had an activities plan which was based on their individual choices and abilities. We saw people coming and going, with staff supporting them, throughout our visit.

People had their own menu plans and staff supported people to choose and buy their own food. Some people were supported to regularly go out for lunch to a variety of local eateries. One person with a specialist diet was supported by staff to buy the correct food.

Staff received training in the protection of vulnerable adults and showed signs of how they would recognise potential abuse.

Staff underwent a thorough recruitment procedure and were trained and supported to do their jobs. Staff felt supported in their jobs and comments included 'it's lovely, very supportive and good team working', 'supervision is brilliant' and 'supported immensely'.

Each person had a support plan which was personal to them. We read one support plan in detail. The plan gave information about all aspects of the person's day to day life and how they liked to be supported. This ensured that staff had clear information about the person and were able to provide appropriate support and care.

No one who lived at the home had been assessed as able to administer their own medication. Medication was administered by staff who had received training in this area and had had their competence assessed by a more senior member of staff.

There was a clear staffing structure meaning that there were clear lines of accountability and responsibility. There was always a senior member of staff on duty who offered support and guidance to less experienced staff. We observed that staff were cheerful and competent in their roles. One person told us 'Staff seem to know their stuff' another said 'The staff are nice.'

The company had a complaints policy which ensured that all complaints were recorded and fully investigated.