Background to this inspection
Updated
28 July 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on 09 and 10 June 2016 and was unannounced. It was carried out by one inspector.
Prior to this inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. We reviewed statutory notifications we had received from the service. Providers are required to notify us about events and incidents that occur in the home including deaths, serious injuries sustained and safeguarding matters.
During the inspection we spoke with six people living in the home. We made general observations of the care and support people received at the service throughout the day. We also spoke with the registered manager and three care staff. We reviewed four people’s care records and medicines administration record (MAR) charts. We viewed three records relating to staff recruitment as well as training, induction and supervision records.
We also reviewed a range of management documentation monitoring the quality of the service.
Updated
28 July 2016
The inspection took place on 09 and 10 June and was unannounced.
Amber House is registered to provide accommodation, care and support for up to 22 people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection 14 people were living in the home, one of whom was receiving respite care.
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.
Processes were in place to ensure that only those suitable to work in health and social care were employed. Staff received an induction and on-going training. Staff were supported and received regular supervision and annual appraisals.
The service encouraged a respectful, friendly and welcoming culture that was mutually supportive. Staff demonstrated professionalism, patience and compassion when interacting with those they supported. Staff, and the people living in the home, were aware of professional boundaries. People had privacy and staff demonstrated that they promoted dignity, choice and independence.
Staff understood the types of abuse people could experience and knew how to report any concerns they may have. The service had processes in place to manage any safeguarding issues and contact details for the local safeguarding team were on display.
People received their medicines as prescribed and the service managed, stored and audited medicines appropriately.
The CQC is required to monitor the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. The service demonstrated that they worked within the principles of the MCA. Staff had received training in this and could give us basic information on how this was applied. People who used the service had support and encouragement to make their own decisions. There were DoLS authorisations in place and the service understood the principles of the safeguards.
People and, where appropriate, their relatives, had been involved in planning the support they required. Support plans were in place that were detailed and individual to each person and staff demonstrated that they knew the life histories, support needs, likes, dislikes and preferences of those they supported. People told us their needs were met and the relatives we spoke with agreed.
People were supported and encouraged to participate in activities in the home and in the community. Many of the people accessed day services in the community and some had part time employment locally.
People’s nutritional needs were met and the service monitored people’s food and drink intake where necessary to ensure their wellbeing. People had access to healthcare professionals as required and staff supported people to attend appointments. Robust recording was in place regarding this that identified the treatment each person had received, any actions required and any follow up treatment needed.
The manager had robust and effective systems in place to monitor the effectiveness of the service and the safety of the premises. The manager was visible in the service was valued and respected by people living in the home and the staff.