You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 April 2017

This unannounced inspection took place on 15 March 2017 and was completed on 20 March 2017 when we received the report from the expert by experience. At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good in all key areas.

Sheridan House provides care and support for up to nine people with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum conditions. At the time of our inspection, seven people were living at the service.

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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Potential risks to people’s health, safety and welfare had been reduced because there were effective risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on how to support people safely. There were systems in place to safeguard people from avoidable harm and staff had been trained in safeguarding procedures. The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there was sufficient numbers of staff to support people safely. People’s medicines were managed safely.

Staff had regular supervision and they had been trained to meet people’s individual needs. They understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care and support being provided. The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the related Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been met.

People were supported by caring, friendly and respectful staff. They were supported to make choices about how they lived their lives. There was a relaxed atmosphere throughout the home, and people appeared happy and content. People had enough to eat and drink to maintain their health and wellbeing. They were supported to access other health services when required.

People’s needs had been assessed and they had care plans that took account of their individual needs, preferences, and choices. People and their relatives had been involved in planning and reviewing people’s care plans. A variety of activities were provided to help people to socialise and they enjoyed pursuing their interests outside of the home.

The provider had an effective system to handle complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people who used the service, their relatives, other professionals and staff, and they acted on the comments received to continually improve the quality of the service.

The provider’s quality monitoring processes had been used effectively to drive continuous improvements. The manager provided stable leadership and effective support to the staff. They worked effectively with staff to promote a caring and inclusive culture within the service. Collaborative working with people's relatives and other professionals resulted in positive care outcomes for people who used the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 April 2017

The service remains Good.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 April 2017

The service remains Good.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 April 2017

The service remains Good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 April 2017

The service remains Good.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 April 2017

The service remains Good.