You are here

Archived: Ordinary Life Project Association - 10 Brampton Court Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 April 2016

This service provides accommodation and support to four people with learning disabilities and autism. This inspection was unannounced and took place on the 17 December 2015. At the time of our inspection there were two people living at the service. The home was last inspected in July 2013 and all the standards we inspected were met.

A registered manager was in post at the time of our inspection visit. 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.

We observed people attract staff attention and their behaviour indicated they welcomed these interactions. The staff knew the types of abuse and the expectations that they report any suspicions of abuse. Safeguarding procedures were on display and described the actions to be taken and included the contact details of agencies for staff to report allegations of abuse.

Arrangements were in place to manage risk. Where risks were identified action plans were developed. For example, for people at risk of choking and malnutrition and for people with moving and handling needs. Risk assessments action plans for moving and handling included photographs to give clear guidance to staff on specific techniques to support people with mobility needs.

The staff team at this service was small and stable. Staff clearly knew people and their families. The registered manager said the staffing levels were to increase to support people with their changing needs. The rota demonstrated additional staff were deployed to assist people to access community facilities. Staff said staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs.

New staff said the induction programme prepared them to work unsupervised. Staff said the training provided developed their skills for them to meet people’s changing needs.

Members of staff enabled people to make choices about their meals, what they wore and the activities they joined. Staff said tasks were explained to the person and they supported people with decision making. Mental Capacity Assessments (MCA) 2005 were completed to assess people’s capacity to make specific decisions. Best interest decisions were made for people where they lacked capacity to make specific decisions.

People were subject to continuous supervision. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were made to the supervisory body for authorisation. The registered manager said DoLS authorisations were outstanding from the supervisory body.

People were supported with their healthcare needs. People were registered with a GP and health action plans in place supported people with their ongoing healthcare needs. People had access to specialists such as Occupational Therapists (OT), Speech and Language Therapist (SaLT), opticians and dentists.

Care plans on meeting aspects of people’s care needs were developed and described the areas of their care the person was able to manage for themselves. The assistance needed from the staff formed part of the care plan which the staff reviewed six monthly.

An easy read complaints procedure was on display which told people how to raise complaints.

The staff said the team worked well together and there was good team spirit. They said the registered manager was approachable and were given guidance to meet people’s needs.

Systems were in place to gather people's views during house meetings. Quality assurance arrangements in place ensured people's safety and well-being. Systems and processes were used to assess, monitor and improve the quality, safety and welfare of people. There were systems of auditing which ensured people received appropriate care and treatment.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 April 2016

The service was safe.

Sufficient levels of staff were deployed to meet people�s needs.

Safe systems of medicine management were in place. Staff signed medication administration charts to show they had administered the medicines. Protocols for administering "when required� medicines were developed and included were the purpose of the medicines.

Staff knew the procedures they must follow if there were any allegations of abuse.

Risks were assessed and staff showed a good understanding of the actions needed to minimise the risk to people.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 April 2016

The service was effective.

People were able to make day to day decisions. Best interest decisions were made for specific decisions where people lacked capacity to make them.

New staff said their induction prepared them to undertake their roles and responsibilities. Members of staff benefit from one to one meetings with their line manager. Staff said the training delivered increased their skills to meet people's changing needs.

People's dietary requirements were catered for at the home

Caring

Good

Updated 12 April 2016

The service was caring.

People received care and treatment in their preferred manner which respected their human rights.

Members of staff were respectful and consulted people before they offered support.

The interactions we observed between people and staff were positive.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 April 2016

The service was responsive.

Care plans reflected people's current needs and gave the staff guidance on meeting people's needs.

No complaints were received from relatives and members of the public for investigation since the last inspection.

People attended clubs and participated in community activities.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 April 2016

The service was well led.

Systems were in place to gather people's views.

Members of staff worked well together to provide a person centred approach to meeting people's needs.

Quality assurance systems to monitor and assess the quality of care were in place and protected from unsafe care and treatment. There was a lack of staff understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and that support plans and risk assessment were not in place for all aspects of people�s care and treatment. However, they were not identified in the audits.