Background to this inspection
Updated
19 October 2015
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on the 19 June 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.
The provider sent us a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed records held by CQC which included notifications, complaints and any safeguarding concerns. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.
People who lived at the home communicated in different ways. For example, with speech, pictures, some sign language or in different ways at different times. We spoke and used other methods of communicating with all three people who were in at the time of our visit. We spoke the registered manager and three members of staff.
We spent time observing care in the lounge and dining room areas to help us understand the experience of people who used the service. We looked at all areas of the home. We spent some time looking at documents and records that related to people’s care and the management of the home. We looked at three people’s care plans and carried out pathway tracking for them. Pathway tracking is where we look at a person’s care plan and check that this is being followed and their needs met. We also looked at staff training and supervision records, three staff recruitment files, medication records, risk assessments, accident and incident records, environmental and maintenance records.
At the last inspection on 16 September 2013 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements.
Updated
19 October 2015
56 Chart Lane is a residential home for up to eight adults with learning difficulties. Some people are also starting to experience age associated conditions, for example the early stages of dementia. There were six people living at the home at the time of our inspection. Accommodation is over three floors.
This inspection took place on 30 June 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 16 September 2013 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to the environment and staffing levels. At this inspection we found the improvements required had been made. There had also been additional increases in staffing levels to meet the changing needs of people.
People all said they felt safe and there was nothing worrying them. They said the staff were kind and they were happy. One person said staff made sure they had the things they wanted. For example, items they wanted and decorations in their room. People said staff helped them write their care plans, helped them when they needed it, and in the way they wanted. People said they liked their rooms and food. They told us they could choose what they wanted and could have a snack or a drink any time. People also said they shopped for food, helped cook and enjoyed the activities and holidays.
The home had a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff knew how to report suspected abuse and their responsibilities for doing so. Staff recorded assessments to identify any risks and plans were in place to reduce the risks. For example, some people’s verbal communication skills varied and there was a risk at times their needs would not be known, To address this there were two specific alternative communication systems in place and staff used these when needed.
People were supported by enough suitably qualified and experienced staff. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken to ensure the staff were suitable for their role. There was enough staff with the appropriate skills and experience to keep people safe. Staff were appropriately trained and understood their responsibilities. Staff received training to ensure the care provided to people was safe and met their needs. Staff received regular supervision and support to assist them to deliver care that met people’s needs.
The premises and equipment were safe with regular health and safety checks carried out. There were safety audits to ensure the premises was safe and annual testing of equipment and services such as hoists and electrical equipment.
Systems were in place to ensure that medicines were stored, administered and managed safely. Staff had received the required training, and there were enough experienced staff to manage medicines appropriately to meet people’s needs safely. People had access to healthcare services to ensure their health needs were met. For example their GP, opticians and dieticians.
People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink to make sure their nutritional needs were met. At mealtimes people ate well and were content with their choices. One person showed us in a file full of food pictures and showed us what foods they liked and had eaten every day.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. These safeguards protect the rights of people by ensuring any restrictions to their freedom and liberty had been authorised by the local authority as being required to protect the person from harm. The home was meeting the requirements for DoLS. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act to ensure people’s legal rights were protected where they lacked capacity.
Care plans were developed with people to identify how they wished to be supported and which goals they wanted to achieve and these were regularly reviewed. People were supported in a way that promoted their dignity by being valued, spoken to kindly and treated with respect.
There was a formal complaints procedure with response times. Where people were not satisfied with the initial response it also included a system to escalate the complete to the provider.
People received care that was consistently responsive to their needs. The registered manager was inclusive and promoted a transparent culture. The provider analysed and acted on information acquired from quality assurance questionnaires to monitor and improve the quality of care. The home was in line with their CQC registration requirements, including the submission of notifications to us so we could monitor incidents in the home.