Archived: Cabrini Children's Society - 1 Healy Drive

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People's needs were assessed and risk assessments were carried out before care was provided. These were regularly reviewed each month so that staff were aware of the best way to safely provide support.

The manager and area manager were available on a daily basis to oversee the staff, and monitor that people were being safely supported, for example in personal care and travelling in the community. Health care professionals and social services were involved in people's care planning and in responding to people's concerns when needed. There were always a minimum of three staff available to support people throughout the day and two people at night to respond to night support needs.

There were arrangements in place to deal with emergencies and to make sure people were safe. People's health needs were included in their care planning to ensure they were healthy. The staff and manager involved other health care professionals such as GPs and speech and eating disorder specialists to ensure that people's health care needs were met.

The home was a good size for people to live in and had equipment to help people to be safe. Fire safety equipment and procedures were in place to ensure people would be kept safe in the event of a fire. Epilepsy alarms and special shower seating was available for people who needed this equipment.

There were enough staff available to safely support people and all of the people we spoke with told us that staff were quick to respond when people needed their help.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with three people who used the service and also spoke with three people's relatives. We also observed staff working with people, and people told us that the staff and manager were very caring and supportive. We saw that staff always took the time to stop and speak with people and spoke with them in a manner they best understood, speaking slowly and using pictures to help people understand. One family member said: "the staff are brilliant and I am always contacted about any health issues or concerns of any kind". Another family member told us: "I am very happy with the service and fully consulted about care plans, and I am invited to the meetings and the staff are very caring and attentive.'

Is the service effective?

We saw from four people's records we looked at that people's needs were assessed and a plan drawn up to meet those needs. People and their families we spoke with told us they were happy with the plan provided. One family member said that: 'the manager and staff are really on top of things and I wouldn't want my relative to live anywhere else'. Regular reviews were made of the plan provided and people told us they were involved in the reviews.

People who used the service were consulted for their views on a regular basis, which involved the person, their family or advocate and social services. Any changes they requested were included in a revised care plan.

The manager and staff were provided with adequate support, guidance and training to do their job. They were experienced in supporting people with learning disabilities and used effective systems to communicate with people, such as including pictures in choices of food and activities and to ensure people knew familiar staff were scheduled to support them.

Is the service responsive?

People we spoke with who used the service and their families told us that the staff and manager always listened to their concerns and do something to help sort out any problems they are experiencing. People were provided with a range of enjoyable activities and changes were made when necessary to try out new activities. People's support plans were reviewed and changed when necessary in response to changing needs, for example in helping people to become more independent in managing their medication and being involved in shopping and cooking. People told us they had lots of interesting activities and that the staff listened when they wanted to do something different. For example one person saw that staff were going out shopping and requested that they could come too. The manager arranged that a driver would go instead of using the bus, so that the person did not have to use the bus in the rain.

Is the service well led?

The registered manager was involved in direct care and worked with all the staff almost every day and takes part in the sleep-in and weekend rota. This meant they could identify any issues quickly and address them if they arose. Staff we spoke with told us that they felt the home was very well managed and that they received direction and training to allow them to support people at the home. Regular staff meetings and supervision sessions were held and staff said they felt able to raise any issues with the management openly and honestly.

People who used the service told us that they felt the manager was very good at managing the home and was always present to speak with about any concerns.

There were a range of systems in place to monitor the quality of people's care, and to make sure any concerns about staff, management or the way in which care was delivered were addressed.

People were provided with a choice of nutritious food, four people told us the food was good, and they were able to eat food of their own choice. The home administered people's medication with their consent and we found that medication was safely managed.

Staff were supported to provide care safely, through regular training and supervision and support from their manager. People were informed about how to make a complaint if they needed, and systems were in place to respond to complaints.

We saw staff were regularly interacting positively with people who lived at the home and there was clear sensitive communication between the staff and people using the service, with the staff taking time to listen to people.

Care planning and reviews took place regularly with involvement from people, but care plans were not signed as agreed by people who used the service or their representatives.

We found that the staff understood people's care needs and how to protect them from risk and harm. Permanent staff had adequate training and supervision, but volunteers working at the home did not have adequate training.

Appropriate checks were being done by the provider to ensure that the quality of people's care was maintained.