You are here

Royal Mencap Society - 30 Foster Court Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 October 2019

About the service:

Royal Mencap Society- 30 Foster Court is a care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to eight people who receive support with learning and/or physical disabilities. Accommodation is found across two floors and people had access to communal social, dining and bathroom facilities. At the time of the inspection eight people were living at 30 Foster Court.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The service was a large home, somewhat bigger than most domestic style properties. However, the size of the service was not having a negative impact on people who were living there. There were deliberately no identifying signs to indicate it was a care home.

The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or who might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.

As part of thematic review, we carried out a survey with the registered manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people.

The service used minimal restrictive intervention practices as a last resort, in a person-centred way, in line with positive behaviour support principles. Care records indicated when and how such practices were to be used.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

At the time of the inspection, we received mixed feedback about staffing levels; although people appeared to receive support from appropriate levels of staff, we were informed that staffing levels were under review. Safe recruitment systems were in place. People received care and support by staff who had been appropriately recruited and had undergone the necessary recruitment checks.

People’s level of risk was appropriately assessed and well managed from the outset. People received support that was tailored around their support needs and areas of risk were regularly reviewed.

Safeguarding procedures were in place. Staff were familiar with safeguarding and whistleblowing reporting processes and understood the importance of keeping people safe.

Medication procedures and processes were safely in place. Staff were appropriately trained, had their competency levels regularly assessed and supported people with their medicines in a safe and effective way.

Staff received support with training, learning and development opportunities. Staff received regular supervisions, appraisals and offered a variety of different training sessions as a way of developing their skills and abilities.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 October 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our 'Safe' findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 October 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our 'Effective' findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 October 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our 'Caring' findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 October 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our 'Responsive' findings below.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 October 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our 'Well-led' findings below.