We carried out a review of the data available to us about Royal Mencap Society - 17 Flaxfield Road on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Royal Mencap Society - 17 Flaxfield Road, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
• There were arrangements in place for the people's relatives and health professionals to safely visit people living at the service.
• Staff received infection prevention and control training and adhered to good practice in relation to personal protective equipment (PPE).
• There provider ensured sufficient stock of PPE and COVID-19 tests were available and the team maintained the testing regime in line with national guidance.
• Policies and procedures in relation to the management of risks associated with COVID-19 were thorough and up to date.
• The management had risk assessed the team's day to day working practices and made changes to reduce any risks. For example, detailed handover sheets had been introduced which reduced the amount of time staff needed to spend together exchanging information.
We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines.
At the time of inspection five people were living at the home. The service is in a residential home that has been developed and adapted in line with 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 lead as ordinary life as any citizen.
The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
This comprehensive inspection took place on 15 and 19 November 2018. The inspection was unannounced, which meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
People were protected from avoidable harm and discrimination by staff who had completed relevant training and understood their responsibilities to safeguard people. Risks to people had been identified, assessed and were managed to keep people safe, whilst promoting their freedom.
There were always enough staff deployed to provide safe care to meet people’s individual needs. Staff had been assessed to ensure they were suitable to support people who lived with a learning disability.
Staff had completed an effective induction programme and the provider’s required training, which enabled them to develop and maintain the necessary skills to meet people’s needs. The registered manager provided effective support to staff through a system of supervision, appraisal and competency assessments.
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. Staff completed effective best interests decision processes to ensure people’s human rights were protected.
People were referred promptly to relevant healthcare professionals when required to maintain their health.
People were supported to have enough to eat and drink, to maintain a healthy, balanced diet of their choice. Staff supported people to maintain high standards of cleanliness and hygiene in the home, which reduced the risk of infection. People and staff followed the required standards when preparing or handling food.
The home environment was personalised to meet people's individual needs and preferences.
People’s assessed needs were regularly reviewed and any changes were discussed at shift handovers. This ensured staff had the most current information required to meet their needs.
There was a warm, family atmosphere within the service, where people and staff treated each other with kindness and respect. People were encouraged and enabled to be involved as much as possible in making decisions about how their support needs were met.
Staff involved people in developing their support plans, which were detailed and personalised to ensure their individual preferences were known. Arrangements for social activities, education and work, met individual needs and enabled people to live as full a life as possible.
The registered manager regularly sought people’s views and used complaints as an opportunity to drive continual improvement in the home.
The service was well managed and well led. Staff were very proud of the service, inspired and motivated by the registered manager to provide quality care to people living there. There were good links to the local community that reflected the needs and preferences of the people who use the service. The provider operated effective performance management processes which were reviewed regularly, and reflected best practice.
This inspection was unannounced and took place on the 8, 11 and 12 January 2016.
17 Flaxfield Road is a residential care home which provides residential care for up to five adults with mild to moderate learning disabilities. The care home comprised of two floors with its own secure garden and was within walking distance of Basingstoke town centre. At the time of the inspection five people were using the service.
17 Flaxfield Road has a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.
Relatives of people using the service told us they felt their family members were kept safe. Support workers understood and followed the provider’s guidance to enable them to recognise and address any safeguarding concerns about people.
People’s safety was promoted because risks that may cause them harm had been identified and managed. People were assisted by support workers who encouraged them to remain independent. Appropriate risk assessments were in place to keep people safe.
Recruitment procedures were completed to ensure people were protected from the employment of unsuitable support workers. New support workers induction training was followed by a period of time working with experienced colleagues to ensure they had the skills and confidence required to support people safely. There were sufficient support workers employed to ensure that people’s individual needs were met.
Contingency plans were in place to ensure the safe delivery of people’s care in the event of adverse situations such as large scale resident or support worker sickness and fire or floods. Fire drills were documented, understood by support workers and practiced to ensure people were kept safe.
People were protected from the unsafe administration of medicines. Support workers responsible for administering medicines had received training to ensure people’s medicines were administered, stored and disposed of correctly. Support workers skills in medicines management were regularly reviewed by the manager to ensure they remained competent to continue.
People, where possible, were supported by support workers to make their own decisions. Support workers were knowledgeable about the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. The service worked with people and support workers when required to assess people’s capacity to make specific decisions for themselves. Support workers sought people’s consent before delivering care and support. Documentation showed people’s decisions to receive care had been appropriately assessed, respected and documented.
The service encouraged people to attend a weekly ‘Speakeasy’ advocacy session which provides independent advice to people. This enabled people to access independent advice and support if they required it as well as encouraging people to speak about things that mattered to them.
Support workers received an effective induction into working at 17 Flaxfield Road and completed the provider’s mandatory training to ensure that they had the skills and knowledge required to support people effectively.
People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. We saw that people were able to choose their meals and they enjoyed what was provided. Records showed people’s food and drink preferences were documented in their care plans and were understood by support workers. People at risk of choking received personalised health care professional assessments and recommendations made were followed by support workers to ensure their needs were being met.
People’s health needs were met as the support workers and the registered manager promptly engaged with healthcare agencies and professionals to ensure people’s identified health care needs were met and to maintain people’s safety and welfare.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Appropriate applications had been submitted to
the relevant supervisory body to ensure people were not being unlawfully restricted.
Support workers had taken time to develop close relationships with the people they were assisting. Support workers actively promoted people’s independence and sought activities and work placements to ensure their continued development. Support worker demonstrated in every interaction that they knew and understood the needs of the people they were supporting. Relatives told us they were happy with the care provided. The registered manager and support workers were able to identify and discuss the importance of maintaining people’s dignity and privacy at all times. People were encouraged and supported by support workers to make choices about their care including how they spent their day within the home or in the community.
People had care plans which were personalised to their needs and wishes. They contained detailed information to assist support workers to provide care in a manner that respected each person’s individual requirements and promoted treating people with dignity.
Relatives knew how to complain and told us they would do so if required. Procedures were in place for the registered manager to monitor, investigate and respond to complaints in an effective way. Relatives and support workers were encouraged to provide feedback on the quality of the service during regular meetings with support workers and the registered manager. Information was made available in alternative formats to allow people receiving the service to provide their feedback or complaints.
The provider’s values of care were communicated to people and understood by support workers. Relatives told us and we saw these standards were evidenced in the way that care was delivered.
The registered manager and support workers promoted a culture which focused on providing individuals with the opportunities to live their lives as independent members of the community. People were assisted by support workers who encouraged them to raise concerns with them and the registered manager. The provider had a routine and regular monitoring quality monitoring process in place to assess the quality of the service being provided.
The registered manager had informed the CQC of notifiable incidents which occurred at the service allowing the CQC to monitor that appropriate action was taken to keep people safe.
Relatives told us and we saw that the home had a confident registered manager and support workers told us they felt supported by the registered manager.
We found that people were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink. One person we spoke with told us they liked to drink coke. We saw that this person had been supported to buy coke and had access to it in the kitchen. There was a list to say what was on the menu each day and whose turn it was to help prepare the meal.
We found that the home trained staff correctly before they undertook any responsibility for administering medication.
Staff we spoke with told us that received planned supervision and felt supported by the team and manager. They told us that they had access to training opportunities which were relevant to their role.
The provider had systems in place to monitor and evaluate the quality of services provided. People living in the house were asked for their feedback each month and also had access to advocacy services.
People told us that staff always knocked on their doors. They told us that they were very happy in the home and that they always had lots of things to do. People told us that they felt safe and could always talk to staff.