Harrow Street

At our last inspection 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 on-going 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.

The service supported people who had varied needs to live a safe and fulfilled life. Assessed risks to people were reduced or eliminated to support the safety of people using the service.

There was a registered manager in post. There were audits and spot checks in place to make certain staff worked correctly and that people received the appropriate support at a good standard. People using the service and their relatives had various ways of sharing their views and this was openly encouraged.

People’s support plans reflected their individual choices and goals and people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff understood and followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 guidance. Staff asked for people's consent before providing any support.

Support staff and people using the service knew how to make a complaint and had no worries about doing so.

The registered manager regularly asked for the views of people about the quality of the support that was provided at Harrow Street. Staff had completed all required training and this was updated on a regular basis to ensure people's needs were met appropriately.

Systems were in place for the reporting of notifications to CQC and incidents that involved people had been reported to us as required.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We used a number of different ways to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service. This was because some people had complex needs which meant that they were not able to tell us, in detail, about their experiences.

We saw evidence that people were consulted before receiving care. A relative of a person who used the service told us, 'We are always involved in reviews; we are always encouraged to be involved.'

People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration. A relative we spoke with told us, 'The food is varied; they (staff) always try to get them to try new things.'

People who used the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. A relative told us, 'The building is lovely and has a big lounge. My family member uses a wheelchair and all parts of the building are accessible to them.'

We saw that records relevant to the management of the service were well maintained and reflected the needs of people who used the service.

We reviewed all the information that the provider had sent us, visited the premises and talked with the registered manager and a member of staff.

We saw that the provider had taken the appropriate measures to meet the essential standards of care for people who used the service provided at Harrow Street.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.

Prior to our visit we reviewed all the information we had received from the provider. During the visit we spoke with two people who used the service and with the parents of one person who used the service and asked them for their views. We also spoke with three care staff. We also looked at some of the records held in the service including the care files for three people.

People who used the service were supported to make their own decisions where they were able to do so. We saw staff asking people for their views and preferences. One person told us about various community resources they visited on a regular basis, including swimming and grocery shopping.

A relative of a person who used the service said, "(my relative) re-acts to stimuli and we can tell when she is happy, which she is here." They added, "When she's here we have peace of mind."

We observed people contributing towards everyday tasks including being supported in preparing a cooked lunch.

We saw that the building was very clean, well decorated and in good repair.

We identified concerns regarding the arrangements that the provider had in place in the event of a fire or other emergency.