Archived: Mr David Calwell - 13 Durham Avenue

Mr David Calwell – 13 Durham Avenue is a residential care home providing personal care for up to three people with a learning disability. There were three people using the service at the time of the inspection. The service is provided from a domestic style property, with communal areas and provides people with their own private bedrooms.

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.

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

People received safe care and were protected against the risk of abuse and avoidable harm. Staff managed people’s medicines safely and kept the home clean and hygienic. Staff assessed and managed risks to people to help keep them safe.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were cared for by staff who were well supported and had the right skills and knowledge to meet their needs effectively. Staff supported people with their healthcare needs and worked well with external healthcare professionals. The service met people’s nutritional needs and worked with them to make sure food provision also reflected their preferences.

People were treated well, with kindness and compassion by staff who respected their privacy and dignity and promoted inclusion. The service supported people to be as independent as they were able. We received positive feedback about the caring approach of staff.

The service put people at the centre of the care they received. Staff used detailed assessments to identify people’s needs and preferences and worked to ensure people were happy with the care they received. The provider had processes to manage complaints appropriately. The service made sure people were supported to communicate and supported people with activities to enhance their wellbeing.

The service was led by an established provider who people felt was approachable and caring. People’s relatives felt the care and support their loved ones received was of a good standard. The provider understood their responsibilities and monitored the quality of the service using a range of systems.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 21 July 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

The last comprehensive inspection of this service was carried out 15 December 2014, at which time we found the provider was meeting legal requirements.

During this inspection, we found the provider had continued to meet legal requirements and, as such showed consistent good practice.

Mr David Calwell – 13 Durham Avenue is a small home registered to provide care and accommodation for up to three persons who live with learning disabilities. The home is situated in a residential area of St Annes close to the sea front and within walking distance of a number of facilities and amenities. At the time of our inspection, three people were living at the home.

The provider understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they knew how to work within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions. However, they had not recorded assessments of people’s capacity to make decisions. Additionally, decisions, which had been taken in people’s best interests, had not been recorded. We have made a recommendation about this.

We found the provider had systems to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

We looked at the recruitment of two staff members. We found appropriate checks had been undertaken before they had commenced their employment confirming they were safe to work with vulnerable people.

Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed an induction and training programme was in place. Staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.

Individual risk assessments had been completed for people who lived at the home. This helped to ensure risks had been identified and measures put in place to reduce risks to people’s safety and wellbeing.

The environment was maintained, clean and hygienic when we visited. We saw staff followed infection control guidelines.

We found sufficient staffing levels were in place to provide support people required. We saw staff members could undertake tasks supporting people without feeling rushed.

We found medication procedures at the home were safe. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. Medicines were stored appropriately.

People’s nutritional needs were met by staff who knew their individual needs, likes and dislikes. People told us they were satisfied with the meals staff prepared for them.

The service had a complaints procedure which was made available to people on their admission to the home. People we spoke with told us they were happy and had no complaints.

Care plans were organised and had identified the care and support people required. We found they were informative about care people had received. They had been kept under review and updated when necessary to reflect people’s changing needs.

We found people had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs had been met.

We observed staff supporting people with their care during the inspection visit. We saw they were kind, caring, patient and attentive.

The provider used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys and care reviews. The provider also spent time with each person who used the service every week. We found people were satisfied with the service they received.

During the inspection we looked at how people's needs were being reviewed and risks were being managed. We looked at the records of people living there to see how this was being done. One person wanted to show us their plan of care. Records showed people needs were being reviewed and risks managed. Staff told us residents had been living at the home for a number of years and they had a good understanding of their individual needs, likes and dislikes. Comments included, 'We update the records regularly, especially when there are any changes'. Also, 'All the staff know peoples needs and get updates all the time. It's a small home and we have been together for a long time'.

Observations we made confirmed people responded positively with staff and were being supported in a way which suited them. We saw they were able to communicate their wishes with staff members and these were clearly understood. People were moving around the home freely and doing things they wanted to do without restriction.

During the inspection we viewed the environment. We also looked at service and maintenance records. People living at the home showed us around and wanted us to see their individual rooms.

.

There were two staff members on duty at the time of arrival. We had given the home short notice of the visit to ensure they were available on site to carry out the inspection. People changed their plans to go out to accommodate this.

When we arrived the three people using the service were in the dining/ kitchen area. They made us feel welcome and were interested in why we were visiting their home. We talked with all three people throughout the inspection period. People talked to us when we were viewing records and we shared information with them. People were communicating with each other and staff members. It was a relaxed and open atmosphere.

People told us they were looking forward to going out. When we asked a staff member where they were going to go, they told us it was the residents choice and each day could be different.