We carried out a review of the data available to us about Addington House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Addington House, you can give feedback on this service.
62 Addington House is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal care support for up to six adults with learning disabilities and or autism. At the time of our inspection five people were using the service.
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 were safe at the service. Staff had been trained in safeguarding to protect people from abuse. Staff understood the signs of abuse and how to report any concerns in line with the provider’s procedures. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. The provider followed safe recruitment practices. Risks to people were assessed and management plans were in place to manage identified risks.
Medicines were administered and managed safely. Staff maintained accurate medicines administration records. The environment was safe and clean. Staff followed safe infection control procedures. There were systems in place for staff to learn lessons when things go wrong.
People’s care needs were assessed and their support planned based on their individual needs. Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure support delivered to people continued to meet their needs. People’s relatives were involved in their care planning and their views were respected. People received food and drink to meet their nutritional and dietary needs. People received support to maintain good health; and staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals.
Staff were trained and supported through regular supervision. They had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. The service had systems in place to enable a smooth transition when people moved between services. The home had been adapted and had suitable facilities which met people’s needs.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
Staff understood people’s needs and treated them with respect and dignity. Staff communicated with people appropriately and supported them to express their views. People were encouraged to follow their interests and develop daily living skills. The service provided information to people in accessible formats. People were supported to maintain their religious and cultural values.
People’s relatives knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service. The service sought feedback from people and their relatives and used this to improve the service. There were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of service provided. The service worked in partnership with external organisations to develop and improve the service.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection and update:
The last rating for this service was Good (published 17 May 2017). At this inspection the service remained Good overall.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating of the service.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection in November 2014, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good. The service demonstrated they continued to meet the regulations and fundamental standards.
People told us they felt safe and liked living in Addington House. Staff were knowledgeable about what risks were involved when supporting people and how to minimise these. Arrangements were in place to safeguard people from the risk of harm and abuse. There were systems for checking that people received their medicines correctly and that staff administered medicines safely.
People received effective care and support because there were enough staff to meet their needs. Staff were available to provide one to one support when needed. Staff received ongoing training and support and were aware of their roles and responsibilities. They were supported though an appraisal and supervision system to check they remained skilled in their roles. Recruitment procedures were thorough and all necessary checks were made before new staff commenced employment.
Addington House was safely maintained and remained comfortably furnished. People's individual preferences and personalities were reflected in the decoration of their bedrooms and shared areas of the service.
People continued to receive a service that was person centred and responsive to their individual needs. Staff had a thorough understanding of how people wanted to be supported and people were involved in the development and review of their care. Support plans were detailed and descriptive of how people wished to be supported. Staff responded appropriately to people’s changing needs by accessing support as required. They worked effectively with external health and social care professionals.
People were supported with their nutritional needs and involved in the planning and preparation of their meals. People were supported to access health services to maintain their health and wellbeing.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff showed understanding and patience and people were treated with respect and dignity. People felt listened to and confident that any concerns or complaints they raised would be dealt with.
People had access to a varied range of activities and leisure opportunities in the home and wider community. Where they had friends or family they were supported to maintain those relationships in a meaningful way.
The registered manager continued to provide good leadership and led by example. Staff felt supported and there was open communication in the service.
The provider had systems in place that continued to be effective in assessing and monitoring the quality of the service. Action plans were used to highlight any areas where improvements were required and these were monitored to ensure that changes were made.
This inspection took place on the 25 November 2014 and was unannounced. At our previous inspection in July 2013, we found the provider was meeting the regulations we inspected.
Addington House is a care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to six adults with learning disabilities and autism. There were six men using the service at the time of our inspection.
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 were safe because staff knew what to do when safeguarding concerns were raised. Staff had been trained to recognise and respond to abuse and they followed appropriate procedures. The provider’s recruitment and employment processes were robust and protected people from unsafe care.
Staff understood people’s rights to make choices about their care and support and their responsibilities where people lacked capacity to consent or make decisions. This was because they had received training on the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People received effective care and support because there were enough staff that were trained to meet their needs. Staffing was managed flexibly so that people received their care when they needed and wanted it. Staff had the skills and expertise to meet people’s specific needs. This included training on autism and managing behaviour that may be challenging. They understood their roles and responsibilities and were supported to maintain and develop these skills through regular management supervision.
People using the service had personalised support plans, which were current and outlined their agreed care arrangements. Plans were kept under review and individual risk assessments set out what to do to keep people safe. This meant staff had accurate information on how to meet people’s needs.
People’s health needs were monitored and they had access to health care services when they needed them. Any advice from external professionals was included in their care and acted on accordingly. People were supported to keep healthy and their nutritional needs and preferences were met.
Care records described people’s hopes and aspirations for the future and they were encouraged to be as independent as possible. People were actively involved in deciding how they spent their time and pictorial aids were available for those who needed support with communication.
People were treated with respect and dignity and staff were knowledgeable about the ways in which individuals liked to be supported. Their individual preferences and diverse needs were known and staff supported their choices and independence.
People told us they found the staff and manager approachable and could speak to them if they were concerned about anything. There was an open and inclusive atmosphere in the service and the manager led by example.
Staff had access to information, support and training that they needed to do their jobs well. Staff meetings were held regularly and were used to discuss any areas of concern, any changes to policies and to get feedback from staff. Staff felt well supported and had confidence in the manager.
People and their relatives were involved in providing feedback about Addington House. The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the services people received and to ensure that the service was running safely and to the required standard. Various ongoing audits, both internally and externally meant that the quality of care was regularly assessed and evaluated. Where improvements were needed, action was taken.
People who use the service told us they were happy with the care and support they received at the care home and that the staff were kind and caring. Several people told us about the activities that they undertook and the things that they liked to do. One person told us 'I like the staff'.go and see my relatives.' Another person told us, 'choose what I want to eat for breakfast, having cheese and crackers,' they went onto tell us how they had chosen and bought a new shirt for themselves the previous day.
We saw staff treated people who used the service with respect and dignity. We found staff were suitably trained and were familiar with the individual needs, abilities, preferences and daily routines of the people they supported. Information written and held by the home was up to date and accurate, and written in a way that involved people who use the service.
We saw that everyone had high levels of well being. There was a lot of interaction with staff, and a warm and friendliness between them. The home was lively with many comings and goings; people who use the service arrived back from activities or were getting ready to go out. People were continually given choices about what they wanted to do, what drinks they wanted or where they wanted to be.
The lounge/dining area has recently benefited from being redecorated making the downstairs communal area more comfortable and homely.
People told us about the choices that they had with what to wear, or who they went to see. Comments included 'go see my brother every week' and 'I like to see my mum'every four weeks.'
People enjoyed the food, and were involved in planning what to eat, shopping for supplies and preparing the meals; one comment received was 'it's nice, it's curry'.
The deputy manager told us about the range of activities that are going on, these include bowling, discos, cinema, eating out and swimming, some people also go to college. People who use the service also told us 'I like to see fireworks, bumper cars, Bognor, Brighton, see my mom, Croydon.'