We carried out a review of the data available to us about SENSE - 58 Featherstone Road on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about SENSE - 58 Featherstone Road, you can give feedback on this service.
The service applied the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensured that people who used 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. People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and is inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The provider had quality assurance systems in place and action had been taken to make some improvements. However, some issues were yet to be addressed. We identified some further issues during the inspection that had not been picked up by managerial observations or by in-house audits.
People felt safe and were supported by staff who knew how to protect them from avoidable harm. Overall, risks to people's health and well-being had been assessed and monitored to promote people’s safety. People received their medication as prescribed. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The home was visibly clean and observed infection control practices.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported 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 achieve the best possible outcomes including, 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.
New staff received induction training when they started working at the home. Training had been received by staff and refreshed in line with the provider's timeframes. People were supported by staff who knew them and their needs well. People were encouraged, where possible, to make decisions about their care. People were supported by staff who understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People's nutritional needs had been assessed and guidance was provided for staff about how to encourage people to maintain a healthy diet. Referrals were made to healthcare professionals where required to ensure people's health needs were met.
Relatives felt staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to develop and maintain their independence skills. Visitors were always made to feel welcome.
Assessment and reviews of people’s care and support needs were undertaken regularly or more frequently when required. Relatives were included in these processes to ensure all needs were determined and addressed. Relatives felt comfortable to raise any complaints they had with the staff or the registered manager. Relatives confirmed they were always kept up to date with important information relating to their family member and could contact the registered manager at any time.
Relatives told us the service was now well-led and spoke positively of the new management team at the home. Provider feedback processes had been used to gather information about the views of people and relatives about the service provision. The registered manager understood their regulatory responsibilities and their requirement to provide us (CQC) with notifications about important events and incidents that occurred whilst the service was delivering care.
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 02 August 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.
People were supported to receive safe care by staff who were aware of and minimised the risks associated with their care. Staff were aware of the signs of abuse and appropriate action they should take to safeguard the people living at the home. Robust recruitment processes were used to ensure staff were safe to support people.
People received their medicines safely. Staff had received training to provide this support safely. There were systems in place to check that medicines had been given as prescribed.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported to access a range of healthcare professionals as needed to promote their health. People were supported by an established staff team who had developed the skills and knowledge to meet people’s individual needs. People were assisted to have food and drinks they enjoyed.
People received support from staff who understood and knew them well. Staff enjoyed supporting the people living at the home.
Care had been planned around people’s needs and wishes. Reviews of care took place to ensure people continued to be supported in the way they preferred.
People were supported to pursue activities that were of interest to them. There was an open culture where relatives felt able to raise any concerns they may have. Systems were in place for complaints and concerns to be raised.
Feedback consistently said the home was well-led. Staff felt supported both by the registered manager and their colleagues. Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service and the registered manager demonstrated a strong commitment to ensure the home continued to develop.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
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 provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.
58 Featherstone Road is an adapted domestic property. It provides accommodation and care for up to four people who have a learning disability and who are living with one or more sensory impairments. 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 and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.
We found that people were safe. Our observations, feedback from staff, relatives and health professionals who visited the home confirmed this. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about abuse. Staff told us they would not tolerate abuse or poor practice and were aware of their responsibilities to report this in the event of it happening. Staff were aware of people’s individual risk assessments and were working in innovative ways to promote people’s freedom and reduce the restrictions which people’s disabilities could place on them. Staff and relatives told us there were enough staff on duty to enable people to be supported to live the lifestyle of their choice.
We observed staff working skilfully to meet the specific and complex needs of the people they were supporting. Many staff had gained experience over time and all staff had been trained in providing care safely and how to meet the specific needs of the people they supported.
People were encouraged to help choose, purchase and prepare their own food. We observed that people were offered meals of their individual choice and preference. Staff supported people sensitively during meal times and gave the support people needed to eat safely in accordance with their risk assessments and eating and drinking guidelines.
People had been supported to stay healthy. We found that people had attended a wide range of routine and specialist healthcare appointments and staff had worked innovatively to support people with their health, to ensure their disability didn’t exclude them from attending healthcare appointments.
Staff we spoke with demonstrated compassion for the people they were supporting. Many of the staff had built up relationships with people and their families over many years. Relatives we spoke with confirmed staff were always kind, attentive and caring. The manager was able to demonstrate how they matched staff with people to ensure the best possible relationships were formed.
People had been encouraged to be as involved in their own lives as far as possible. We saw staff use communication aids and signs to enable people to make choices and to know what was going to happen during the day. Staff we spoke with were able to describe how each person communicated and we found this was supported with written records.
The manager and the provider both demonstrated a strong focus on the people living in the home. We observed that the manager had a very detailed and active knowledge about each person and we observed that they were involved in the day-to-day running of the home.
Care staff supported people in a sensitive way using differing methods of communication to ensure that people understood what was going to happen. Some people living in the home had improved in their ability to use these communication tools and this had helped to broaden their experiences. People appeared well cared for, having their personal care needs met in an environment that supported them.
Relatives we spoke with comments included: "I am very pleased with the care. They always let us know about any changes in my relative's health or staff changes," and "(My relative) receives excellent care. Everything the staff do is person centred. They use a total communication system with my relative to assist them....they are constantly trying to improve."
People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.
Staff were well trained and supported to prove safe and effective care and systems were in place to ensure that risks to people's safety and well-being had been identified and risks minimised.
Care staff supported people in a sensitive way using differing methods of communication to ensure that people understood what was going to happen.
People were supported to experience a range of activities and to undertake some day to day tasks. People appeared well cared for having their personal care needs met in an environment that supported them. We spoke with a friend of and three relatives of people that lived in the home. They told us care staff contacted them if they had concerns about the heath of their relative. They told us the home was: "Smashing," "Absolutely excellent," and "My relative is very well cared for and very happy."
Systems were in place to ensure that risks to people's safety and well being had been identified and risks minimised. Permanent care staff were generally appropriately recruited, trained and supported.
We spoke with three relatives of people who lived at the home. They told us they were pleased with the care provided at the home. Relatives told us 'Wonderful. I could not wish for a better home' and 'Obvious to me X is very happy there.'
People had an active lifestyle. Each person had a schedule of activities personal to them. People were involved in activities during our visit. Some people went out to a pub, another person relaxed in their bedroom in a massage chair.
Care workers spoken with were aware of people's needs. For example, where people needed a soft diet and what this consisted of. We found that at the evening meal people had foods of a consistency in line with their care plan.