You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 April 2018

This unannounced inspection took place on 5 and 6 March 2017. Ceely Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Ceely Road provides care for up to six adults with learning disabilities in one adapted building. At the time of the inspection six people lived in the service.

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

Ceely Road has 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.

Improvements had been made in the area of infection control since our previous inspection in November 2015. An infection control audit along with other audits such as health and safety were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.

At the time of the inspection, the number of staff available to support people was not always sufficient. Following our inspection we were told this had been remedied and staffing levels would be increased to meet the demands of the service.

Trained staff administered medicines to people. Most medicine records were up-to-date and accurate. Where records were not accurate these were amended before the end of our inspection.

Staff recruitment was carried out safely; this was to prevent unsuitable people from working with the people at Ceely Road. Staff were trained and received support to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles. They were encouraged to feedback ideas to assist with the improvement of the service, through supervision, meetings and general discussion.

Staff were trained to identify signs of abuse and how to report concerns. Where people required additional support with maintaining their health, professionals such as psychologists and GPs were consulted.

Where people were not able to make decisions for themselves, their mental capacity was assessed and the best interest process was followed. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the caring nature of staff. We observed how staff supported people with their care in a dignified and sensitive way. People’s communication needs were identified and staff had the skills and knowledge to work in an inclusive way with each person.

People’s relatives told us where appropriate they were kept up to date with changes to people’s needs and their day to day lifestyle choices. Relatives told us there was an honest and open culture in the service.

People were supported to remain as independent as possible; involvement in the community was encouraged. Activities were available to people to protect them from the risk of social isolation.

Care plans and risk assessments were in place to ensure staff knew how to support people appropriately and safely.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and the staff. Staff understood the aim of the service and worked together to accomplish providing good quality and effective care.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 April 2018

The service was safe.

People�s safety and well-being had been considered and steps had been taken to ensure that any risk of harm had been assessed.

Medicines were stored and administered in a safe way.

The provider had systems in place to ensure checks were carried out prior to candidate�s being offered employment. This minimised the risk of unsuitable candidates working with people.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 April 2018

The service was effective.

People�s health was monitored and when necessary external professionals were contacted to provide support to people on maintaining good health.

Staff received training in how to care for people in a caring and respectful way.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and how this applied to people�s care.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 April 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who demonstrated a caring nature and who were knowledgeable about people�s needs and the care required.

Staff knew how to protect people�s dignity and privacy and demonstrated this throughout our visit.

People were able to communicate with staff in a way that was meaningful to them. Systems were in place to encourage effective communication with people.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 April 2018

The service was responsive.

Relatives of people that used the service told us they could speak to the staff at any time. Staff were honest and open with them about the welfare of the people living in the service.

People participated in activities both in the service and in the wider community. This encouraged inclusion and protected people from social isolation.

Staff raised complaints on behalf of people when suitable to do so. Relatives told us they knew how to raise complaints. The registered manager knew how to manage complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 April 2018

The service was well-led.

There were clear visions and values for the service. There was a shared philosophy of person-centred care, which enhanced the service to people.

The registered manager and the senior staff encouraged an honest and open approach. This reassured staff to feed back any ideas or comments they had about how the service could be improved.

The service worked closely with other organisations to improve the lives of the people using the service.