Background to this inspection
Updated
9 January 2019
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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. The service was previously rated Good on 17 September 2016.
This inspection took place on 10 October 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was completed by one inspector.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Before the inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the service including previous inspection reports and any notifications received by the Care Quality Commission. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law.
During the inspection there were four people living at 53 Churchfields. We spoke to one person, two relatives, three care staff, the registered manager and operations manager. We reviewed documentation including three people’s care records; medication records; three employment files; training records; staff supervision; accidents and incidents; policies and procedures and safeguarding records. We received information about the service from two external agencies. Some people living at 53 Churchfields were unable to fully express their views of the service but we observed interactions between staff and people in the communal areas of the home.
Updated
9 January 2019
Omega Elifar – 53 Churchfields is a residential care home for four adults with learning disabilities or autism. Throughout this report the service will be referred to as 53 Churchfields.
Rating at last inspection
At our last inspection published on 17 September 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing 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.
Why the service is rated good
Staff had the knowledge and confidence to identify safeguarding concerns and had attended training in safeguarding people at risk.
The registered manager and staff had a robust approach to managing risks to people. There were comprehensive risk assessments in place to mitigate the risks.
Appropriate recruitment checks had taken place to prevent the recruitment of staff unsuitable to work with people at risk.
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 support this practice.
People were supported in a person-centred way and the service was developed and designed in line with Registering the Right Support guidance.
Staff knew people well including their preferences and personal histories.
People were supported to have a balanced diet with as much choice and participation in food preparation as possible.
The registered manager and staff made appropriate referrals to outside agencies or healthcare services to ensure positive outcomes for people.
Staff supported people in a kind and compassionate way. Feedback from relatives confirmed that the service was caring towards people using the service.
People were supported to be as independent as possible for example by accessing the local community.
There was an open culture in the service with consistently strong leadership from the registered manager.
There were systems and processes in place to monitor and improve the service.
People, relatives and staff were actively involved in the delivery and improvement of the service.
The service met all of the relevant fundamental standards.
Further information is in the detailed findings below