St Anne's Community Services - Croft House

We found the following examples of good practice.

Hand washing facilities, personal protective equipment (PPE) and signage on infection control procedures were available near the entrance and throughout the care home.

Staff ensured people using the service could maintain links with family members and friends. Family members and friends who were unable to visit the home could stay in touch with people with phone and video messaging.

The provider had appropriate arrangements to test people and staff for COVID- 19 and was following government guidance on testing. This ensured people and staff were tested for COVID- 19 in a consistent way in line with national guidance.

Risk assessments were carried out to assess the impact of COVID- 19 on people and staff. Actions were taken to reduce the risks to people where necessary. For example, the avoidance of public transport.

The provider ensured that staff received appropriate training and support to help prevent the spread of infection. All staff had received training on infection control and the use of PPE.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

St Annes Community services – Croft House is a residential care home providing personal care to seven people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to seven people. The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use 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 that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People enjoyed living at the service and felt they had their independence promoted by staff. People had a good quality of life and were treated with kindness by staff. Relatives were positive about the service. They said it was well managed and staff cared for their family members with dignity and respect.

Staff felt the provider often did not always consider their views. We have made a recommendation about improving communication.

People's medicines were managed safely. People received enough to eat and drink and staff had positive links with health care professionals which promoted people’s wellbeing.

Care and support was tailored to each person's needs and preferences. People had been supported to develop and maintain positive relationships with friends and family.

Staff encouraged positive risk taking so people could experience new things and develop skills.

Lessons were learnt about accidents and incidents and these were shared with staff, to reduce the risk of further occurrences.

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.

Recruitment checks were carried out to ensure staff were suitable to work in the service. Staff had received appropriate training and support to enable them to carry out their role.

Systems were in place to monitor and improve the service to ensure people received a good quality service.

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 can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, 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.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (Published 30 November 2016).

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Croft House provides 24 hour care and support for up to seven people with complex learning disability needs. The service provides long term care. It is situated in a residential area close to the centre of Horsforth in Leeds.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us and indicated by gestures, signs and body language that they felt safe in their home. We saw there was a positive atmosphere in the service and people who used the service had developed good relationships with the staff team. Staff could recognise abuse and knew what action to take to keep people safe.

There were systems in place to ensure people received their medication safely and as prescribed. Medicines were stored correctly and Medication administration record (MAR) charts showed people received their medicines as prescribed.

People had plans in place to manage risks, which staff understood and followed. However, we found the risk management plan records did not always give detailed guidance for staff.

The registered manager and provider had systems in place to make sure staff were recruited safely and there was enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment procedures were robust to ensure that staff were suitable and fit to be employed.

People received care and support from staff that had the skills and knowledge to understand their role. Staff training was updated regularly and staff had regular supervision that helped identify training needs and improve the quality of care. However, the provider had not made sure refresher training in moving and handling was available to staff.

The management team and staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They had made appropriate referrals to the relevant authorities to ensure people's rights were protected. However, two authorisations to deprive people of their liberty had expired at the time of our inspection.

People were supported to eat and drink well and to maintain a varied balanced diet of their choice. People had access to healthcare facilities and support that met their needs.

People received support from staff who showed kindness and compassion. Their dignity and privacy was respected. Staff understood people's individual needs in relation to their care and communication.

People were supported to pursue social interests relevant to their needs, wishes and interests.

Arrangements were in place for people to maintain links with the local community, friends and family.

Staff showed good knowledge of people’s support needs and preferences. However, some support plans did not always give specific, detailed guidance on how support needs were to be met.

There were systems of audit in place to check, monitor and improve the quality of the service.

During our visit, we saw staff interacting with people in a positive, respectful and caring manner. People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

People appeared relaxed and comfortable in the presence of staff. We observed staff treating people kindly with regard to their dignity and privacy.

We were able to communicate verbally with one person who used the service. When we asked them if they liked the home and the staff who supported them, they replied, 'Yes.'

There were effective systems in place to manage and reduce the risk of infection.

The service had effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Appropriate checks were made before people were employed by the service to make sure they had the necessary skills and experience needed for their role.

The home had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.