You are here

St Anne's Community Services - Astbury Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 June 2017

This inspection took place on 3 May 2017 and was unannounced. This meant the provider and staff did not know we would be visiting. A second day of inspection took place on 10 May 2017, and was announced.

St Anne’s Community Services – Astbury consists of two large, modern, purpose built bungalows. The bungalows are connected via a doorway. The service is in a residential suburb of Middlesbrough, with local amenities nearby. The service can provide care and support for up to eight people with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorder. The service is a care home without nursing. At the time of our inspection eight people were living at the service.

The service was last inspected on 4 December 2015 and 6 January 2016. During that visit we identified a breach of our regulations. Mental capacity assessments did not always take place and decisions made in people’s best interests were not always documented. We took action by requiring the provider to send us action plans setting out how they would make improvements. During our latest inspection we found action had been taken and improvements had been made.

The service had 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.

Risks to people were assessed and plans put in place to reduce the chances of them occurring. The registered manager monitored accidents and incidents to see if improvements could be made to keep people safe. Plans were in place to keep people safe in emergency situations. Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people from abuse. People’s medicines were managed safely. The registered manager monitored staffing levels to ensure they were sufficient to keep people safe. The provider’s recruitment processes minimised the risk of unsuitable staff being employed. The premises were clean and tidy.

People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were protected. Mental capacity assessments were documented, and guidance on the decisions people could make themselves and those they would need support with were detailed in people’s care plans. Staff received a range of training in order to support people effectively. Newly recruited staff were required to complete the provider’s induction process before working with people without supervision. Staff were supported through regular ‘personal development review’ supervisions and appraisals. People were supported to maintain a healthy diet. People were supported to access external professionals to monitor and promote their health.

Throughout the inspection we saw that support was delivered to people in a kind and caring way. Relatives spoke positively about the support people received, and described staff as caring. Staff had a good knowledge of people and were able to communicate effectively with them. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and were treated with dignity and respect. Policies and procedures were in place to support people to access advocacy services and end of life care.

Care and support was based on people’s assessed needs and preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s support needs and were able to talk in detail about how people liked to be supported. People were supported to access a range of activities based on their personal interests. Procedures were in place to investigate and respond to complaints.

Staff spoke positively about the culture and values of the service and said they were proud of where they worked. Staff spoke positively about the registered manager and deputy manager. The registered manager carried out a number of quality assurance checks to monitor and improve standards at the service. The registered manager had informed CQC

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 June 2017

The service was safe.

Risks to people were regularly assessed and action was taken to minimise risk.

People were supported by staff who had been appropriately recruited and inducted.

People were supported to manage their medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 June 2017

The service was effective.

People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were protected and their consent to care obtained and recorded.

Staff were supported through regular training, supervision and appraisal.

People were supported to access external professionals to maintain and promote their health.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 June 2017

The service was caring.

Staff maintained people’s dignity and treated them with respect.

Staff were kind and caring.

Procedures were in place to support people to access advocacy services.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 June 2017

The service was responsive.

Care was planned and delivered based on people’s assessed needs and preferences.

People were supported to access activities they enjoyed.

Procedures were in place to investigate and respond to complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 June 2017

The service was well-led.

Staff spoke positively about the culture of the service and the registered manager.

Quality assurance processes were in place to monitor and improve standards.

Feedback was sought from people and staff.