You are here

Archived: Outreach Community & Residential Services - 162 Bury Old Road Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 February 2016

This was an announced inspection which took place on 11 January 2016. We had previously carried out an inspection in March 2014 when we found the service to be meeting all the regulations we reviewed.

Outreach Community and Residential Services – 162 Bury Old Road is a care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to seven people who have a learning disability or mental health needs. On the day of our inspection four people were living in the service.

The provider had a registered manager in place as required by the conditions of their registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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 registered manager was responsible for all the services delivered by the provider. They were therefore supported by a project manager who was responsible for the day to day running of 162 Bury Old Road.

People who used the service told us they felt safe with the staff who supported them. They told us staff were always available to support them in the activities they wished to do. People were enabled to make their own decisions and told us staff always promoted their independence. During the inspection we observed staff were caring and respectful in their interactions with people who used the service.

Recruitment processes were robust and should help protect people who used the service from the risk of staff who were unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. People who used the service were involved in the recruitment and training of staff.

Staff had received training in the safe administration of medicines. The competence of staff to administer medicines safely was regularly assessed.

Systems were in place to help ensure the safety and cleanliness of the environment. People who used the service were encouraged to participate in cleaning the home and in regular safety checks.

Staff told us they received the training and support they needed to carry out their role effectively. There were systems in place to track the training staff had completed and to plan the training required. All the staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed working in the service and felt valued by both the registered manager and project manager. Staff felt able to raise any issues of concern in supervision, staff meetings and the staff forum organised by the provider.

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We saw that appropriate arrangements were in place to assess whether people were able to consent to their care and support.

People who used the service had health support plans in place. Records we reviewed showed that, where necessary, people were provided with support from staff to attend health appointments. People were also supported by staff to maintain a healthy diet as far as possible.

Care records we looked at showed people who used the service had been involved in developing and reviewing their care and support plans. Support plans included good information about the way people wanted their support to be provided and their goals for the future. We saw that staff used creative and innovative methods to support people to achieve their dreams as far as it was possible to do so.

All the people we spoke with told us they felt able to raise any concerns with the project manager or registered manager and were confident they would be listened to. We noted systems were in place to encourage people who used the service to provide feedback on the care and support they received.

The service was based on a set of values which were clearly understood and implemented by staff. Quality assurance systems in place were used to drive forward improvements in the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 February 2016

The service was safe.

People who used the service told us they felt safe with staff who supported them. People’s care records included information about any risks people might experience and the support strategies in place to manage these risks.

Staff had been safely recruited and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff had received training in how to protect people who used the service from the risk of abuse.

Systems were in place to help ensure the safe administration of medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 February 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received the induction, supervision and training they required to be able to deliver effective care and support.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people’s rights to make their own decisions and choices.

People received the support they needed to help ensure their health and nutritional needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 February 2016

The service was caring.

People who used the service told us staff were kind and caring in their approach. During the inspection we observed kind and respectful interventions between staff and people who used the service.

Staff we spoke with were able to show that they knew people who used the service well. Staff demonstrated a commitment to providing person-centred care and promoting people’s independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 February 2016

The service was responsive.

People received flexible and personalised support. Staff used creative ways of providing the support and encouragement people who used the service needed to progress towards achieving their dreams, aspirations and goals.

People who used the service were encouraged and supported to engage with services and events outside of the service.

People were encouraged to provide feedback on the service they received. Any complaints were taken seriously and used to continue to drive forward improvements in the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 February 2016

The service was well-led.

The service had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission and was qualified to undertake the role. They were supported in the day to day running of the service by a project manager. All the people we spoke with during the inspection told us the managers in the service were understanding and approachable.

Staff told us they enjoyed working in the service and felt well supported by their colleagues and managers.

The service was based on a set of values which were clearly understood and implemented by staff. Quality assurance systems in place were used to drive forward improvements in the service.