Goddard Avenue (145)

Goddard Avenue (145) provides care and accommodation for up to 12 people who have a learning disability and/or mental health support needs. The home is comprised of two separate adjoining houses. At the time of our inspection there were 12 people using the service.

We found the following examples of good practice.

People contributed to a newsletter sharing their thoughts about the pandemic and reinforcing current practices such as social distancing.

Discussions were held with people to remind them of why staff were wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

Regular testing was in place for people using the service and staff. The service was proactive in arranging extra testing for people where it was felt they may have been at risk of infection.

Meal times had been arranged so that people could social distance through use of other rooms and staggered meal times.

Staff were provided with support and information to enable them to continue to work through the pandemic.

Regular audits ensured the service was prepared to continue to meet the challenges of the pandemic.

This inspection took place on the 29 October 2018 and was announced.

The service has 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good in all domains. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Staff had a good understanding of how to safeguard the people they supported. The registered provider had safeguarding policies and procedures in place that staff understood and felt confident about raising any concern they had.

Staff had been recruited safely, were appropriately trained and supported. They had skills, knowledge and the experience required to support people and provide the care they needed.

People lived in a service which was kept clean and tidy. People were encouraged to help with cleaning the service and their own private areas of the accommodation.

Medicines were managed safely in accordance with best practice guidelines. There were medicines policies and procedures in place that offered clear guidance to staff. Medicines training had been completed and staff had their competency regularly assessed.

Risks to people's safety were identified and action taken to keep people as safe as possible. Accidents and incidents were reviewed and measures implemented to reduce the risk of them happening again.

People had their needs assessed before they were supported by the service. This information was used to develop person centred care plans and risk assessments that reflected people's individual needs and preferences.

People could make choices about the food they ate and were supported to maintain a healthy diet. People were supported to maintain good health and to obtain treatment when they needed it.

The registered manager ensured there was sufficient staffing levels in place to provide support people required. People had one to one support to enable them to attend appointments or pursue activities of their choice.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate. People had positive relationships with the staff who supported them and there was a homely, caring atmosphere in the home. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their dignity. People were supported to make choices about their care and to maintain relationships with their friends and families.

The registered provider had audit systems in place that were used to highlight areas of development and improvement within the service. Feedback was regularly sought from people, relatives, staff, as well as health and social care professionals.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Goddard Avenue (145) provides care and accommodation for up to 12 people. The Home comprised of two separate adjoining houses. Each house provided six single bedrooms for people who have a learning disability and/or mental health support needs. At the time of our inspection there were ten (five in each house) people using the service.

There was a registered manager in place at the home. 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.

The service was safe. Staffing levels were assessed to meet the needs of the people living in the home. This included at times providing one to one support when people undertook their individual chosen activities in the local community.

We found the provider had systems in place that safeguarded people. Policies and procedures were in place to guide staff to make referrals to the relevant external agencies if the need arose. Staff we spoke with were aware of their responsibilities in reporting any concerns.

Recruitment processes that were in place enabled the registered manager and provider to ensure staff had the suitable skills, knowledge and competencies to support people. Suitable checks were made of staff that included a Disclosure and Barring Check (DBS). This helped the provider assess staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Procedures were in place to manage and dispense people’s medicines safely. Medicines audits were also undertaken. Stock levels that we checked were correct.

There were risk assessments in place to ensure that staff received guidance in how to support people safely. These were reviewed six monthly or before if people’s needs changed. Some people we spoke with confirmed how they were involved in this process and told us they were happy with the standard of care they received and how risks were managed.

People received effective care that met their health needs. Staff worked with healthcare professionals to ensure that professional advice was sought when necessary. We received positive feedback from some professionals who supported people in the service. They felt the service effectively met people’s needs.

People’s rights were protected in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This is legislation that protects the rights of people’s who are unable to make decisions about their own care and treatment. Where appropriate, applications to deprive a person of their liberty were made to the relevant authority.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring and treated people with respect. People were encouraged to maintain relationships with people that were important to them. People were involved in planning their own care where possible.

Staff understood and were responsive to people’s individual needs and preferences. People were able to follow their own preferred routines during the day, for example by getting up and going to bed when they wished. People had ‘goals’ which they wanted to achieve and staff supported them to meet their chosen goals.

A complaints process was in place and people were supplied with the documentation in a format conducive with their needs. People we spoke with knew how to make a complaint and told us they would be happy to speak with any of the staff if they had any concerns.

The service was well led by the registered manager. Staff reported feeling well supported and able to raise any concerns or issues. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. This involved a programme of audits that included: medicines, the environment and people’s care plans.

Is the service safe?

The service was safe. The environment was clean. People we met told us they felt safe. Medicines were well managed. Staff were able to describe the different ways people might experience abuse, and the correct steps to take if they were concerned abuse had taken place.

Is the service effective?

The service was effective. The interim registered manager has recently introduced new documentation to monitor the quality of service offered to people because this process was not in place beforehand. Each person had a support plan that described their individual support needs, and agreed the personal outcomes to strive for. Staff we met had a good understanding of people's needs.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. Staff were respectful when supporting people in the service. One person told us, "Oh, the staff are all very good." Throughout our visit, we saw people were not rushed. One person told us, 'They don't hurry you here.' People told us they were involved in decisions about the care they received and met with their keyworker monthly to review their support plan.

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive. Care records reflected each person's needs and ensured care and support was provided in accordance with their wishes. People and their families were asked for their views in annual surveys. People's support plans were reviewed monthly with their keyworker. People had access to activities that were important to them.

Is the service well-led?

The service was well led. Staff had a good understanding of the aims of the service and were regularly supervised by senior staff. We saw some care records needed updating and reviewing, but the interim registered manager has recently introduced new quality assurance processes for the service, including collation of survey findings, regular auditing of the care provided, and monitoring of complaints.

We found that the service had a care planning system in place that met people's needs and was person centred. Staff we spoke with were well informed about people's needs and worked together as a team.

We found that the home was clean and hygienic throughout and free from odours.

There were safe systems in place for the storing and administering of medication. Staff were appropriately trained in this responsibility.

The service had systems in place to monitor and audit the quality of service delivery and manage risk.