You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 April 2017

The inspection took place on 22 March 2017 and was unannounced. At the last inspection of this service on 03 November 2015, they were found to not be meeting the standards we inspected. However at this inspection the provider had made all the required improvements. This was in relation to the requirements of the MCA 2005.

Hardy Drive provides accommodation for up to six people who have a learning disability. The service is not registered for nursing care. At the time of our inspection five people were living at Hardy Drive.

The home had a registered manager. 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. However the registered manager was responsible for other homes run by the provider and had an assistant manager at hardy drive. At this inspection we spoke with the assistant manager of the service who is responsible for the home.

People felt safe living at Hardy Drive. Staff understood how to keep people safe and risks to people's safety and well-being were identified and managed. The home was calm and people's needs were met in a timely manner by staff that were skilled and experienced. The provider operated robust recruitment processes which helped to ensure that staff employed to provide care and support for people were fit to do so. People's medicines were managed safely.

Staff received regular one to one supervision. People received support they needed to eat and drink sufficient quantities and their health needs were catered for with appropriate referrals made to external health professionals when needed.

People and their relatives complimented the staff team for being kind and caring. Staff were knowledgeable about individuals' care and support needs and preferences and people had been involved in the planning of their care where they were able. Visitors to the home were encouraged at any time of the day.

The provider had arrangements to receive feedback from people who used the service, their relatives, and staff members about the services provided. People were supported to raise concerns with staff or management.

There was an open culture in the home and relatives and staff were comfortable to speak with the registered manager and assistant manager if they had a concern. The provider had arrangements to regularly monitor health and safety and the quality of the care and support provided for people who used the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 April 2017

The service was safe

Sufficient numbers of staff were not always available to meet people’s individual needs at all times.

People were kept safe by staff trained to recognise and respond effectively to the risks of abuse.

Safe and effective recruitment practices were followed to ensure that all staff were fit, able and qualified to do their jobs.

People were supported to take their medicines safely by trained staff.

Potential risks to people’s health and well-being were identified and managed effectively in a way that promoted their independence.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 April 2017

The service was effective.

Staff established people’s wishes and obtained their consent before care and support was provided.

Staff were trained and supported to help meet people’s needs effectively.

People were provided with a healthy balanced diet which met their needs.

People had their day to day health needs met with access to health and social care professionals when necessary.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 April 2017

The service was caring.

People were cared for in a kind and compassionate way by staff who knew them well and were familiar with their needs.

People’s relatives were involved in the planning, delivery and reviews of the care and support provided where appropriate.

Care was provided in a way that promoted people’s dignity and respected their privacy.

Confidentiality of personal information had been maintained and kept securely.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 April 2017

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that met their needs and took account of their preferences and personal circumstances.

Detailed guidance made available to staff enabled them to provide person centred care and support.

Opportunities were provided to help people pursue social interests and take part in meaningful activities relevant to their needs.

People and their relatives were confident to raise concerns which were dealt with promptly.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 April 2017

The service was well led.

Effective systems were in place to quality assure the services provided, manage risks and drive improvement.

People and staff were positive about the managers and how the home operated.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and felt supported by the management team.