You are here

We are carrying out checks at Segal Gardens. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 4 May 2016

This inspection took place on 9 March 2016 and was unannounced.

Segal Gardens is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 15 young adults with complex needs. They are located in the Parr area of St. Helens. There were 11 people living at the service on the day of inspection.

The home had a registered manager in place. 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.

People were supported to take their medicines by staff who were appropriately trained. People received care and support from staff that knew them very well, and had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s individual needs. People told us staff always treated them well and promoted their choices regarding their care, support and the activities they participated in. People and their relatives spoke very positively about staff, their comments included, “I am happy with my support team, I like them” and ”The staff are highly trained and always professional”.

People were supported to live a full and stimulating life, to do what they chose and staff had safeguards in place to allow outings and activities to go ahead. Risk assessments were regularly reviewed and also when peoples needs changed and the staff approach was flexible to allow for changes in circumstances. The staff ensured people were protected from the risk of harm.

Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and understood how to recognise and report any abuse. The service had policies and procedures in place that informed staff of how to keep people safe and these were followed.

Staffing ratios were in place to meet peoples assessed needs and were responsive to people’s changing needs and preferences. This allowed for people to make full use of all of the facilities the home had to offer, to go out on trips, both as a group and individually, and to experience well-paced and attentive support.

People were protected by the service’s safe recruitment practices. Staff underwent the necessary checks which determined they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults, before they started their employment.

People’s risks were anticipated, identified and monitored. Staff managed risk effectively and supported people’s decisions, so they had as much control and independence as possible.

Care plans provided staff with clear direction and guidance as to how to meet people’s individual needs. The service was flexible and responded to people’s needs. Relatives told us how well staff responded to individuals and always ensured they went the extra mile. They also told us staff and management team always welcomed suggestions to improve the service further.

People knew how to raise concerns and make complaints. People and their relatives who had raised concerns confirmed they had been dealt with promptly and satisfactorily.

There was a management structure within the service which provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. There was a positive culture within the service, the management team provided strong leadership and led by example. Staff said “I have never been so well supported by a company” and “I feel really valued as an employee”.

There were quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed. Members of the management team were visible in the service and regularly visited people and sought their views about the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 4 May 2016

The service was safe.

Safe recruitment practices were followed and there were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

People were supported by staff who had an understanding of how to recognise and report any signs of abuse.

People were protected by staff who understood and managed risk. Staff managed situations in a positive way when people displayed behaviour that challenged them.

Procedures and processes were in place to help ensure that people received their medicines safely.



Updated 4 May 2016

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had the right competencies, knowledge and skills to meet their individual needs.

People were supported by staff who confidently made use of their knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were involved in decisions about their care and support.

People told us they liked living at Segal Gardens. People enjoyed the activities undertaken there.



Updated 4 May 2016

The service was caring.

People described the caring approach shown by staff as, “very good”.

Staff built relationships with people who used the service and were given ample time to meet people’s needs and provide companionship.

People were supported by staff that were focused on maintaining their independence.

Staff respected people’s dignity and maintained their privacy.



Updated 4 May 2016

The service was responsive.

Care records were personalised and focused on a person’s whole life. Staff had an understanding of how people wanted to be supported.

People were empowered by staff to be involved in identifying their choices and preferences, and have as much control and independence as possible.

People were encouraged to maintain hobbies and interests. Staff understood the importance of companionship and social contact.



Updated 4 May 2016

The service was well led.

Management were approachable and had clear values that were understood by staff and put into practice.

Staff demonstrated that they were motivated to develop and provide quality care.

Quality assurance systems drove improvements and raised standards of care. New ideas were promoted and implemented to provide a quality service.