Archived: Royal Mencap Society - 36 Huddleston Close

36 Huddleston Close is a care home for up to three people with learning disabilities which is managed by Mencap. At the time of our inspection there remained two men using the service. The service is a small purpose built home, with a large shared kitchen and lounge, a small garden, two bedrooms and two rooms for staff.

The service adjoins 34-35 Huddleston Close, which is also a service managed by Mencap and shares a registered manager, who had been in post since 2014 and jointly managed both services. 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 inspection there had been some changes to people’s needs, particularly with regards to health conditions. The service worked well with other professionals in order to meet the person’s needs and support them to access health appointments. There were measures in place such as communication books and hospital passports to support the person to stay in hospital when required. People were supported to eat and drink well.

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 support this practice. Medicines were safely managed with systems in place to protect people from mistakes.

The staff team had effective strategies for communicating with people and supporting them to express their needs. There were positive behavioural support plans which were effective in reducing incidents of behaviour which may challenge. The service promoted positive risk taking, and had risk management plans for supporting people to access activities whilst recognising the benefits to the person of doing so. People were safeguarded from abuse and poor care.

Staff received suitable training to carry out their roles and were recruited in line with safer recruitment processes. Staffing levels were adequate to meet people’s needs and were reviewed as people’s needs changed. There were procedures to maintain a safe environment which met people’s needs.

People’s needs were assessed with plans and guidelines in place to make sure people received the right support. Staff worked with people to develop their skills, independence and to encourage people to carry out meaningful activities.

Managers had a clear vision for promoting the provider’s values amongst the staff team and systems in place to monitor the care people received and the quality of the service.

36 Huddleston Close is a small care home for people with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorders. The service is registered to provide accommodation for three people, however at the time of our inspection there were two people living there, and the Provider has told us they do not intend to have a third person move into the service. The house consists of two bedrooms, a lounge, large kitchen, staff room and a third bedroom which is used as a staff sleep in room. The house is modern, clean and well-decorated. The service is managed by Mencap jointly with the house next door.

There was a registered manager who had been in post since November 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.

The service had extensive measures in place for ensuring people received a service which was safe. Risk assessments were thorough, personalised and regularly updated, and in several areas the service was innovative with how risk was managed. Staff were recruited through a safer recruitment process, which ensured that new staff were suitable for their roles.

The service was working in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Where people did not have capacity to make their own decisions the service demonstrated that it was working in line with people’s best interests. Where people’s freedoms were restricted for their safety, the service took appropriate measures under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People who could not speak were supported to communicate through systems such as Makaton and objects of reference, including an extensive set of photographs which were specific to the individual. These were used to support people to make choices over their activities and food, to gain their consent for particular daily living activities and to teach people about road safety.

Staff had extensive training in areas related to their roles, and had a good understanding of their responsibilities under safeguarding and the MCA. Relatives expressed some concern about the skills of agency staff, however the service was in the process of recruiting more permanent staff.

Relatives praised the way the service addressed concerns and complaints. The service was frequently innovative, and was prepared to put measures in place above and beyond what was required in order to successfully meet people’s needs. Where a person had required a stay in hospital, the service had arranged for this person to receive 24-hour care from a worker familiar to them in order to ensure that they received the correct treatment. The service had consulted with external organisations in order to try innovative approaches to manage risk and meet people’s needs. There were effective audit tools in place to ensure that high quality care was delivered.

People had varied and personalised activities including accessing places of interest in the local community, and communication tools were in place to allow people to choose their activities on a daily basis. The registered manager promoted an open culture whereby staff were comfortable raising concerns and areas for improvement.

We gathered evidence of people's experiences of the service by reviewing communication that the service had with these people's families and other care professionals. We found that the service made regular contact with each person's family and others to share information about people's needs and as well as asking for feedback about how people had been cared for.

The people who lived at this home had a detailed personal care plan, each of which we saw. These gave detailed information to staff about the most appropriate ways in which to interact with people and meet their needs.

The member of staff we spoke with said that they had training about protecting vulnerable adults from abuse and were able to describe what action they would take if a concern arose.

All prescribed medicines were available at the home on the day of our inspection visit. We found no gaps in the recording of when medicines were given to people.

Rotas showed who was available as 'cover' in case of staff illness or absence. Aside from the permanent care staff team there is a team of relief workers who can be called upon to provider cover if necessary.