65 Charlton Road

About the service

65 Charlton Road is a residential home for up to 7 adults with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection, 7 people lived at the service.

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

The service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of right support, right care, right culture.

Right Support: The service supported people to make choices and be independent. The staff focused on people's strengths and promoted what they could do for themselves. People were supported to pursue interests and have meaningful lives. People were supported in a safe, clean, well-equipped, well-furnished and well-maintained environment. People were supported to be involved in their care. People accessed specialist healthcare services when needed. People were supported to take their medicines in a safe way.

Right Care: The staff promoted equality and diversity. They provided kind and compassionate care. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity. They understood people's individual needs and responded to these. There were systems designed to protect people from abuse. Staff had training and knew how to recognise and report abuse. There were enough appropriately skilled staff to meet people's needs and to keep them safe. Staff supported people with their communication using a range of techniques, which reflected people's individual needs and best practice. People were supported to pursue a range of activities. Risks to people's safety were assessed and planned for.

Right culture: There was a positive culture, where people felt safe. They had good relationships with staff and each other. People received good quality care and support. Staff understood best practice for supporting people with learning disabilities and autistic people. Staff turnover was low, which supported people to receive consistent care from staff who knew them well.

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.

For more information, please read the detailed findings section of this report. If you are reading this as a separate summary, the full report can be found on the Care Quality Commission (CQC) website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (Published 9 December 2017).

Why we inspected

We undertook this inspection to assess that the service is applying the principles of right support, right care, right culture.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

65 Charlton Road is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

65 Charlton Road provides personal care and accommodation to a maximum of seven people who have learning disabilities, some of whom have physical needs. At the time of this inspection there were six people using the service including one person who was receiving a respite service.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission [CQC] 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.

There were policies and procedures for safeguarding people. People told us that they felt safe living in the home. Staff knew how to raise any concerns about people's safety so people were protected.

Risk assessments were in place to minimise the risk of people and staff from being harmed. Appropriate checks and tests had been carried out to make sure that the premises were safe.

Person centred care records ensured that the service met people’s individual needs and preferences. The service valued people, recognised their individual strengths and abilities, and understood and supported their communication needs. People told us they were treated respectfully by staff and were fully involved in decisions about their care.

People were supported to lead healthy lives and they benefitted from having access to a range of healthcare services so their health needs were met.

People's medicines were managed and stored safely. People chose what they wanted to eat and drink and their dietary needs and preferences were supported.

Arrangements were in place to make sure people received the service they required from sufficient numbers of appropriately recruited and suitably trained staff. Staff received the support they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities in ensuring people were provided with the care and support they needed.

People were supported to take part in a range of community activities, and supported to maintain the relationship they wanted to have with family and friends.

Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA]. 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 supported this practice.

People who used the service and family members were aware of how to make a complaint.

The home was clean, and people’s individual needs were met by the adaption, design and decoration of the premises.

There was a management structure in the service which provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Checks were carried out to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.

65 Charlton Road is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for seven adults. The home supports people with learning disabilities who may also have physical disabilities. The service is operated by Heritage Care Limited. On the day of our visit there were seven people living in the home. Public transport and a range of shops are located within walking distance of the service.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission [CQC] 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 atmosphere of the home was relaxed and welcoming. People were treated with respect and staff engaged with people in a friendly and courteous manner. Throughout our visit we observed caring and supportive relationships between staff and people using the service.

People were encouraged and supported to make decisions for themselves whenever possible and their independence was promoted. People participated in a range of activities of their choice, and were supported to maintain and develop a number of skills. People were provided with the support they needed to take part in and develop social interests, and maintain links with their family, friends and advocates.

Arrangements were in place to keep people safe. Staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. People’s individual needs and risks were identified and managed as part of their plan of care and support. Care plans were personalised and reflected people’s current needs. They contained the information staff needed to provide people with the care and support they wanted and required.

People were supported to maintain good health and their well-being was promoted. They had good access to appropriate healthcare services that monitored their health and provided appropriate support, treatment and advice when people were unwell. People were provided with a choice of food and drink which met their preferences and dietary needs.

Staff were appropriately recruited, trained and supported to provide people with individualised care and support. Staff told us they enjoyed working in the home and received the support they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities.

Staff understood the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They knew about the systems in place for making decisions in people’s best interest when they were unable to make one or more decisions about their care and/or other aspects of their lives.

There were systems in place to regularly assess, monitor and improve the quality of the services provided for people.

During the inspection we spoke with all of the seven people who used the service. We spent time observing and we spoke with two care workers, and the registered manager. Following the inspection we spoke with three relatives of people who used the service and an advocate of a person who used the service.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People who used the service told us that they felt safe and staff were friendly. We saw staff interact with people who used the service in a respectful manner. Relatives of people who used the service and an advocate told us that they were confident that people were safe.

Staff understood their role in safeguarding the people whom they supported and they understood the whistleblowing policy.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and felt well supported by management staff. The management team had systems in place to keep staffing levels under review. Staffing numbers and skill mix met people's needs.

The home had systems in place to identify assess and manage risks relating to the health, welfare and safety of people who used the service.

The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which applies to care homes. The registered manager knew when an application for deprivation of liberty would need to be submitted for authorisation.

Checks of the premises and other health and safety checks were carried out.

Arrangements were in place for managing medicines safely.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy living in the home and received the care and support that they wanted and needed. Comments from people about the staff included 'They help me,' 'They are friendly,' and 'I talk to my keyworker.'

Staff told us that there was good communication amongst staff about the service and people's needs, which enabled them to carry out their roles effectively in providing the care and support people needed.

People's care needs had been assessed and care and treatment were planned and delivered in a way that promoted people's safety and welfare. Risk assessments had been carried out where necessary. Care plans had been regularly reviewed with involvement from people and those who were important to them.

Is the service caring?

We saw that people were supported by kind, attentive staff who approached people in a friendly manner. People who used the service were seen laughing and chatting with staff. People living in the home told us staff were kind. Relatives and an advocate of a person who used the service told us that people seemed to be well cared for and were treated with respect by staff.

Staff were knowledgeable regarding the specific care needs of people and respected the choices that people made. Staff had an understanding of people's cultural and religious needs and where appropriate, arrangements had been made to meet these needs. People's privacy and dignity were respected. People took part in a variety of activities of their choice.

Is the service responsive?

People received individualised care that was responsive to their interests and preferences. People told us that they were listened to and felt involved in decisions about their care. People's care and health were monitored closely. Written notes about people's health and care were completed by staff.

People's health, safety and welfare were protected as they received the advice and treatment that they needed from a range of health and social care professionals.

People who used the service told us that if they had any concerns or complaints, they would feel comfortable raising them with staff. People had the opportunity to provide feedback about the service.

Is the service well-led?

The home had an experienced registered manager who was supported by the regional manager. Monitoring checks of the quality of the service were carried out. These included checks of the care provided to people and the quality of their environment. Improvements were made when needed.

Staff meetings took place regularly so staff views about the service were taken into account.

Each person had a plan of care that had been regularly reviewed, and included information about the individual support and care that people who used the service needed. There were enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

We saw people were supported to make decisions, which included what they wanted to eat, and what they wanted to do. Staff respected people's privacy and knew about their roles and responsibilities in meeting the needs of the people they supported. We saw people who used the service approach staff without hesitation and that they could access their bedrooms and communal areas freely within the home.

People's health, safety and welfare were protected as they received the advice and treatment that they needed from a range of healthcare and social care professionals.

People knew how to make a complaint.