Archived: Royal Mencap Society - 34-35 Huddleston Close

We found the following examples of good practice.

People were supported to access the community safely. This including using cars rather than public transport and visiting quieter areas such as local parks.

People’s family members were encouraged to meet relatives in the community rather than the home wherever possible.

Where people were not able to maintain social distancing, staff wore additional personal protective equipment (PPE) to mitigate these risks and had enhanced cleaning schedules for communal areas and touch points.

Staff were encouraged to take breaks in vacant bedrooms or in the outdoor room, including being able to remove their masks when alone.

The provider managed PPE supplies centrally and completed weekly stock checks. The provider made outbreak packs available to services, which included additional PPE for staff to wear.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

34-35 Huddleston Close is a small care home run by the Royal Mencap Society for up to four adults with learning disabilities. It consists of a three bedroom house with a shared lounge, kitchen and garden. Upstairs is a self-contained flat where one person lives with support. There were three people living in the service.

The service had a registered manager, who had been in post since May 2014. 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.

Since our last inspection, there had been some changes in people’s needs and the risks they faced through reduced mobility, health conditions and behaviour which may challenge. The provider continued to assess these risks and informed staff to carry out risk management plans to address these in a way which promoted people’s independence and positive risk taking. There had been changes to the building to address these, such as the use of sensor systems and high visibility tiling and flooring and there were measures such as streaming devices, objects of reference and sensory profiles in order to provide an environment which met people’s needs. There were support plans in place to manage people’s long term health conditions and to address behaviour which may challenge.

Staff continued to receive effective training and supervision to meet people’s needs, which was overseen by an effective system which also prompted managers to carry out observations of people’s practice. There had been one new member of staff recruited, and there were systems of safer recruitment and appropriate inductions for new staff and agency staff. Staffing levels remained suitable to meet people’s needs, and the provider was in the process of recruiting volunteers to support people to access the community.

There were detailed communication profiles in place to enable staff to better understand the needs of people who were non-verbal, which had continued to develop since the last inspection. Where there were concerns about people’s safety, these had been reported and investigated in line with safeguarding procedures and there was evidence of the provider learning from these and addressing poor practice. There had been improvements made to medicines procedures in response to a medicines error and an external audit, and staff were supported to learn from these, with medicines safely managed by staff who had been trained and observed as competent to do so. There were suitable checks of the safety of the environment and measures in place to ensure a safe evacuation in the event of an emergency.

Staff were encouraged to reflect on their practice and there was an open, listening culture from managers. There were systems such as daily shift reviews and recording of positive interactions to promote a culture of routinely learning from people’s experiences. Managers maintained systems to ensure that tasks were planned and carried out promptly and carried out innovative systems of audit which took a person centred approach to meeting people’s needs and promoting good health and inclusion.

We were able to speak with one person who was using the service. This person said 'I'm alright, I am going out soon' and also said 'I like going to my shop' (they were referring to a local shop they like to visit regularly). We observed how staff worked with people and remained aware of their needs. We saw that staff were knowledgeable about the way each person made their wishes known and they responded to what people wanted.

The three people who were using the service each had a personal care plan. We looked at two people's care plans. The care plans covered personal, physical, social cultural and emotional support needs. We saw that care plans were regularly updated and reviewed.

One of the staff we spoke with had started working at the service on the day of our visit. This person told us that they had previously worked on the temporary staff bank and had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse and had been told by the manager that they would be attending an update as a part of their induction.

We were able to speak with one person who was using the service. This person told us they 'like the manager' and also said 'I talk to people when I want to.' This person also told us about staff that 'they do things for me' and they cook with staff in their own flat but sometimes eat with other people next door.