SENSE - 54 Monks Dyke Road

Updated 19 October 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the registered persons continued to meet the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Before the inspection, the registered persons completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks them to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also examined other information we held about the service. This included notifications of incidents that the registered persons had sent us since our last inspection. These are events that happened in the service that the registered persons are required to tell us about. We also invited feedback from the principal local authority who contributed to the cost of some of the people who lived in the service. We did this so that they could tell us their views about how well the service was meeting people’s needs and wishes.

We visited the service on 15 September 2017. The inspection team consisted of a single inspector and the inspection was announced. We gave the registered persons a short period of notice because the people who lived in the service had complex needs for care and benefited from knowing in advance that we would be calling to their home.

During the inspection visit we spoke or spent time with all of the people who lived in the service. We also spoke with five care staff, the deputy manager and the registered manager. We observed care that was provided in communal areas and looked at the care records for three of the people who lived in the service. We also looked at records that related to how the service was managed including staffing, training and quality assurance.

In addition, we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who are not able to speak with us.

After our inspection visit we spoke by telephone with two relatives.

Updated 19 October 2017

We carried out this announced inspection on 15 September 2017. We gave the service a short period of notice. This was because the people who lived there had complex needs for care and benefited from knowing in advance that we would be calling.

SENSE – 54 Monks Dyke Road is registered to provide accommodation and care for six people who have a learning disability and/or a sensory disability. It can also accommodate people who live with a physical disability. At the time of our inspection visit there were four people living in the service. Some of the people lived with reduced sight and/or hearing. In addition, all of them had special communication needs and used personal forms of sign assisted language.

The service was run by a charitable body that was the registered provider. There was a registered manager in post. 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. In this report when we speak about both the charitable body who ran the service and the registered manager we refer to them as being, ‘the registered persons’.

At the last inspection on 24 September 2015 the service was rated, ‘Good’.

At this inspection we found the service remained, ‘Good’.

Care staff knew how to keep people safe from the risk of abuse including financial mistreatment. People had been supported to take reasonable risks while also being helped to avoid preventable accidents. Medicines were safely managed and there were enough care staff on duty. Background checks had been completed before new care staff had been appointed to ensure that they were suitable people to be employed in the service.

Care staff had received introductory and on-going training. In addition, they had been given guidance and they knew how to care for people in the right way. People enjoyed their meals and were supported to eat and drink enough. In addition, they had been helped to obtain all of the healthcare assistance they needed.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with compassion and respect. Care staff recognised people’s right to privacy and promoted their dignity. People had been supported to access independent lay advocates when necessary and confidential information was kept private.

Care staff had involved people and their relatives in making decisions about the care that was provided. People had been supported to be as independent as possible. In addition, they had been helped to pursue a wide range of hobbies and interests. There were arrangements for quickly and fairly resolving complaints.

People had been consulted about the development of their home and quality checks had been completed. Good team working was promoted and care staff had been enabled to speak out if they had any concerns.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.