Archived: Autism Together - 104 Church Road

104 Church Road is a residential care home providing care and support to two people in a semi-detached home in a residential area of Wirral.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

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

People told us that they were happy with the support they received at 104 Church Road. There was a relaxed and homely atmosphere within the home and it was clear that people felt comfortable and took control within their environment. People had warm and friendly relationships with the staff that supported them.

People had autonomy and acted with confidence within the home. Staff encouraged people taking control and promoted this by respecting people’s routines and preferences. They asked people for their permission and checked their opinions before doing things within the home. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent. Staff focused on supporting people to do what they can for themselves; they knew the areas in which people needed and had consented to support and the areas of people’s lives in which the person was independent and private.

Each person had a personalised support plan that was meaningful to them and offered guidance for staff on how to best meet their needs. People were supported to be involved in their local community and in the day to day running of the home. People had been supported to learn new skills and try new things.

Care and attention had been put into making sure the home had a nice environment and a homely feel. The home was safe, the environment was clean, and people’s medication was administered safely. The home manager and registered manager used a series of audits and checks to ensure people received support that met their needs and was of high quality. These checks had led to action being taken by the provider to make improvements.

Staff told us that they had received “amazing” training and support that enabled them to be effective in supporting people.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 11 April 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

People told us they were well cared for and felt safe living at the home. The registered manager had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take appropriate action when required.

Recruitment checks were carried out to ensure suitable people were employed to work at the home. Our observations and discussions with staff and people who lived at the home confirmed sufficient staff were on duty.

The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found that the appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications had been submitted to the Local Authority in relation to people’s care.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people who lived at the home. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care and support people required.

Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. People who received support or where appropriate their relatives were involved in decisions and consented to their care.

Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required.

People had access to sufficient quantities of nutritious food and drink and were given suitable menu choices at each mealtime, these options had been chosen by the people who lived at 104 Church Road.

We found people had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met.

We found that staff were well trained and supported. They were able to demonstrate skill and competency in their knowledge about autism and the support people required.

People who used the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint. The complaints procedure was available and people said they were encouraged to raise concerns.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service including staff and resident meetings to seek the views of people about the quality of care being provided.

We looked at the people's care records and found they provided clear guidelines for the staff to enable them to support the people in their care. The relative told us they were part of the care planning process and they attended annual care review meetings. We found the home supported people to access other health care professionals.

We found there were enough suitably skilled staff to look after people who lived at the home.

We found that the home managed medicines appropriately and had systems in place to ensure the secure storage and safe administration of medicines.

We saw the home was of a suitable design and layout for the needs of the people at the home and that it was warm, clean and secure.

The member of staff we spoke with knew and understood the care needs of the people who lived at the home and was familiar with the things they liked and disliked. They knew about any risks that needed to be considered and they were able to describe how those risks were managed. This meant that care and support for the people who lived at 104 Church Road was delivered according to their requirements and risks were managed accordingly.

The people who lived at 104 Church Road were encouraged to live as independently as possible. They went to community vocational services and work placements. People were able to make choices and change decisions. One person said "Sometimes I don't like what's going on and so I change it".

We looked at the care records of both people who lived at the home. They were organised, clear and up to date. One person said they were included in the planning of their care and a relative said "I am always in touch about my relative's care - relationships with staff and managers are good".