You are here

Archived: Goddard Avenue Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 October 2015

Goddard Avenue offers care and accommodation for up to six people with a learning disability. It is run by Royal Mencap Society which is a national charity providing services for people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were three people living in the home.

The inspection took place on 12 September 2015. This was an announced inspection. As we were visiting the service on a Saturday we rang the day before the inspection to ensure that there would be someone at home on the day of our visit. During our last inspection in August 2013 we found the provider satisfied the legal requirements in the areas that we looked at.

A registered manager was employed by the service who had been in post for three months and was currently going through induction. 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.

Whilst people’s medicines were managed appropriately so people received them safely, on the day of our inspection we found bottles of medicines which had not been labelled when opened. Staff we spoke with were also not aware of the procedure for ordering people’s medicines.

When asked if they liked living at Goddard Avenue people said “Yes”. People told us they felt supported by staff and could ask for help when needed. We observed staff interacting with people in a kind and friendly manner, involving people in choices around their daily living.

People were supported to eat a balanced diet. People had access to the kitchen where they could make drinks throughout the day.

People were supported to access healthcare services to maintain and support good health.

There were systems in place to protect people from the risk of abuse and potential harm. Staff were aware of their responsibility to report any concerns they had about people’s safety and welfare. People told us they felt safe living in the home.

Staff told us they felt supported. Staff received training to enable them to meet people’s needs.

There were enough staff deployed to fully meet people’s health and social care needs. The registered manager and provider had systems in place to ensure safe recruitment practices were followed.

Arrangements were in place for keeping the home clean and hygienic and to ensure people were protected from the risk of infections.

The registered manager and staff had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 12 October 2015

This service was not always safe.

Whilst people’s medicines were managed appropriately so people received them safely, on the day of our inspection we found bottles of medicines which had not been labelled when opened. Staff we spoke with were also not aware of the procedure for ordering people’s medicines.

People told us they felt safe living at Goddard Avenue.

Suitable numbers of staff were employed to meet people’s needs. Safe recruitment practices were in place.

Arrangements were in place for keeping the home clean and hygienic and to ensure people were protected from the risk of infections.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 October 2015

This service was effective.

People had access to healthcare services and received on-going healthcare support.

People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink. People were encouraged to maintain a balanced diet.

We found the service met the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005), including Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 October 2015

This service was caring.

We saw staff were caring and spoke with people using the service in a dignified and respectful manner.

People’s preferences for the way they preferred to be supported by staff were clearly recorded.

People were supported to maintain their independence as appropriate. There were opportunities for people to make day to day choices which included what meals they would like and what activities they wanted to participate in.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 October 2015

This service was responsive.

People had access to activities both within the home and their local community.

People received care which was individual and responsive to their needs. Support plans recorded people’s likes, dislikes and preferences.

There were systems in place to support people to make complaints. People told us they would speak with staff if they were unhappy or worried.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 October 2015

This service was well-led.

There was a registered manager in post.

People living in the home and staff were supported to share their views.

There were systems in place for monitoring the quality of the service to ensure people received a good standard of care and support.

Emergency plans were in place which included a 24 hour on-call system for staff to be able to seek management support.