You are here

Archived: Drayton Road Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 March 2015

We inspected Drayton Road on 4 and 5 February 2015. This was an unannounced inspection which meant the staff and the provider did not know we would be visiting. At the last inspection in August 2013 the service was found to be meeting the regulations we looked at.

Drayton Road provides accommodation and personal care for adults with learning disabilities. At the time of inspection there were six people living in the home. The service had a registered manager. 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 service had good procedures for safeguarding adults. Staff knew the types of abuse, what signs to look out for and how to report any concerns they had.

People had risk assessments that set out potential risks and had clear guidance for staff for managing these risks to keep people safe. People's care plans reflected these risks and provided a good structure for support.

There was sufficient staff to provide personalised care for people using the service. We saw enough staff to enable people to go out with support and for others to remain in the home.

Medicines were managed safely and were recorded properly. We saw that the medicines were audited each month and the stocks were correct when we checked them.

Staff were well supported and all had a structured induction and received regular supervision and appraisals. We saw there was a range of training available for staff, and they told us they had received regular training and were able to ask for additional support when they needed it.

Managers and staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff demonstrated an understanding of these and worked in line with the code of practice when supporting people.

People liked the food they were provided with, and were given a choice about what they had. We saw they were supported to cook for themselves and given the help they needed to do this as independently as possible.

Staff had good, caring relationships with people using the service. We observed good standards of care and caring interactions while staff were providing support.

People were actively involved in the running of the home. We saw details of regular house meetings to get feedback about the service and involve people in making decisions about the running of the home.

Care plans were personalised to each individual's needs. Each person had a needs assessment which was reflected within the care plan, stating their preferences and details of how they wanted to receive their care.

People who used the service, their relatives and staff all felt able to speak to the manager about any issues and give their feedback and ideas for improvement to them. They knew how to make a complaint and there was a policy and procedure in place for responding to complaints.

We saw there were regular audits completed to monitor the quality of the service and to plan improvements. We saw that people using the service were given surveys to complete and these had been used to plan changes to the service. People had also been involved in recruiting new care staff and were able to have a say in the development of the service.

 

 

 

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 March 2015

The service was safe. Staff knew the types of abuse and how to report any concerns.

People's needs and risks had been assessed and care plans put in place to address these risks and keep them safe.

Medicines were managed safely by staff who were trained and supported in administering medicines safely to people.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 March 2015

The service was effective. Staff were trained and supported to provide high quality care to people.

People were always asked for their consent before any care and they were fully involved in any decisions about their care. The provider met the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and DoLS to help ensure people's rights were protected.

People were given a choice of food and supported to maintain a balanced diet that met their own health and cultural needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 March 2015

The service was caring. Staff had good caring relationships with people and knew what each individual needed.

People were supported to be involved in decisions about their care and support.

People's privacy and dignity were respected by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 March 2015

The service was responsive. Care was tailored to each person's individual needs and preferences.

Care plans were regularly updated and reviewed with the involvement of people and their relatives.

People had an individual programme of activity in accordance with their needs and preferences.

The service used feedback and complaints to develop and improve performance and standards of care.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 March 2015

The service was well-led. We saw an open culture that encouraged people and staff to share their views and give feedback.

The service was well managed and had good systems in place to support staff and promote good standards of care.

There were good quality assurance systems in place to learn from people's experiences and constantly improve care.