• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: SENSE - 92 Black Prince Avenue

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Market Deeping, Peterborough, Lincolnshire, PE6 8LU (01778) 344215

Provided and run by:
Sense

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

12 December 2017

During a routine inspection

We inspected the service on 12 December 2017. The inspection was announced. SENSE 92 Black Prince Avenue is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

SENSE 92 Black Prince Avenue is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for two people who have a learning disability and/or sensory adaptive needs. There were two people living in the service at the time of our inspection visit. Both of the people had special communication needs and expressed themselves using sign assisted language, vocal tones and gestures. The 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 was run by a charitably body who 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 and the registered manager we refer to them as being, ‘the registered persons’.

At the last inspection on 23 April 2015 the service was rated, ‘Good’.

At this inspection we rated the service as, ‘Requires Improvement’.

There were systems, processes and practices to safeguard people from situations in which they may experience abuse including financial mistreatment. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed, monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe while their freedom was respected. This included occasions when people became distressed and needed support in order to keep themselves and others around them safe. In addition, medicines were managed safely. Suitable arrangements had been made to ensure that sufficient numbers of suitable staff were deployed in the service and background checks had been completed before new care staff had been appointed. Furthermore, there were robust arrangements to prevent and control infection and lessons had been learnt when things had gone wrong.

Although people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, the registered persons had not taken all of the steps necessary to fully support care staff to only provide lawful care that helped people in the least restrictive ways possible. However and in practice, care staff did deliver care in line with current guidance.

Although people had benefited from most parts of the accommodation being well maintained suitable provision had not been made to ensure that all areas were comfortably warm. People received the individual assistance they needed to enjoy their meals and they were helped to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. In addition, suitable steps had been taken to ensure that people received coordinated and person-centred care when they used or moved between different services. People had been supported to live healthier lives by having suitable access to healthcare services so that they received on-going healthcare support.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion and they were given emotional support when needed. They had also been supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care as far as possible. This included them having access to lay advocates if necessary. In addition, confidential information was kept private.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs including their need to have information presented to them in an accessible way. In addition, people had been offered opportunities to pursue their hobbies and interests. Furthermore, the registered manager recognised the importance of appropriately supporting people who chose gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender lifestyles. There were arrangements to ensure that people’s concerns and complaints were listened and responded to in order to improve the quality of care. In addition, suitable provision had been made to support people at the end of their life to have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.

The registered persons had not taken all of the steps necessary to ensure that the service consistently met all regulatory requirements. Although a number of quality checks had been completed they had not always resulted in shortfalls in the service being quickly put right. However and in practice, the registered manager promoted a positive culture in the service that focused upon achieving good outcomes for people. Care staff had been helped to understand their responsibilities to develop good team work and to speak out if they had any concerns. In addition, people and their relatives had been consulted about making improvements in the service. In addition, a number of measures were in place to promote the financial sustainability of the service. Furthermore, the registered persons were actively working in partnership with other agencies to support the development of joined-up care.

15 October 2015

During a routine inspection

This was an announced inspection carried out on 15 October 2015.

SENSE – 92 Black Prince Avenue can provide accommodation and care for two people who have a learning disability. There were two people living in the service at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager. 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.

Staff knew how to respond to any concerns that might arise so that people were kept safe from harm. People were helped to promote their wellbeing and practical steps had been taken to help prevent accidents from happening. Staff reliably supported people to use medicines in the way intended by their doctors. There were enough staff on duty and background checks had been completed before new staff were appointed.

Staff had received training and guidance and they knew how to care for people in the right way including how to respond to people who had special communication needs. People had received all of the healthcare assistance they needed.

Staff had ensured that people’s rights were respected by helping them to make decisions for themselves. The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how registered persons apply the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and to report on what we find. These safeguards protect people when they are not able to make decisions for themselves and it is necessary to deprive them of their liberty in order to keep them safe. In relation to this, the registered manager had worked with the relevant local authorities to ensure that people only received lawful care that respected their rights.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff recognised people’s right to privacy, respected confidential information and promoted people’s dignity.

People had received all of the care they needed including people who could become distressed. People had been consulted about the care they wanted to receive and they were supported to celebrate their individuality. Staff had supported people to pursue their interests and hobbies and there was a system for resolving complaints.

Regular quality checks had been completed and people had been consulted about the development of the service. The service was run in an open and inclusive way and people had benefited from staff receiving good practice guidance.

11 October 2013

During a routine inspection

Both of the people who used the service had special communication needs. They expressed themselves using a combination of sounds, gestures and signs. They showed us by their relaxed manner and smiles that they were pleased to live in the service. In addition, we received feedback from their relatives. One of them said, 'I'm very reassured about the care given by the staff. With their support it's possible for my son to lead a full life.'

We saw that staff had consulted with people who used the service (and their representatives) about what assistance was to be provided.

People showed us that they received all of the support they needed. Records confirmed that assistance had been provided in a safe, reliable and responsive way.

We found that the provider had measures in place to help safeguard people from abuse.

We saw that people were being supported in a safe and comfortable setting.

Documents and records showed that quality checks were being completed to ensure that people were reliably provided with the facilities and services they needed.

6 February 2013

During a routine inspection

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at the time of the inspection.

We made two visits to the service, on the first visit we met the two people who lived at the home and observed how they were cared for. The visit was short as the people were going out shopping with staff. We visited the home again and met with the regional and acting manager.

The people who lived at the home were unable to communicate with us verbally however they were happy to show us around their home. We saw they lived active lives with the support from staff. Both people looked well cared for, well groomed and wore clothing of their own choice. Both people had busy social lives, they attended day care facilities during the week and went out in the evenings and at weekends.

We spoke with a relative who told us, "It's the best place he has ever lived at. The staff call me every week. I go to regular meetings and am involved with helping to make decisions. I have no concerns at all."

We identified some concerns during the first visit to the home. We found concerns with how the staff managed people's behaviours and identified that staff supported people to go on a shopping trip without safe levels of staffing which had been recommended in the person's behaviour management plan. We also found some concerns within the environment. Details of concerns found are included in the main body of this report.

27 October 2011

During a routine inspection

In view of the communication needs of the people who use the service, we relied on observations between the staff and the people. We received Information provided by the staff and the service provider to help us identify the outcome for those people.

Staff we spoke with during our visit was very positive about working in the home and praised the teamwork and supportive atmosphere.