We carried out a review of the data available to us about United Response - 16 Mansfield Road 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 United Response - 16 Mansfield Road, you can give feedback on this service.
At our last inspection we rated the service good with an outstanding rating in responsive. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. However, we found that there had not been sufficient development of the service to continue to be rated outstanding in responsive. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated Good…
People received good responsive care. Staff knew them well and understood how to care for them in a personalised way. There were plans in place which detailed people’s likes and dislikes and these were regularly reviewed. People were given accessible information about raising complaints and their relatives told us that they knew how to raise a complaint on their behalf if needed. The provider had a complaints procedure although they had not received any since our last inspection.
The care that people received was effective. They 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 received training and support to be able to care for people well. They ensured that people were supported to maintain good health and nutrition; including partnerships with other organisations when needed. The environment was suitable for people’s needs.
People continued to receive safe care. There were enough staff to support them and they were recruited to ensure that they were safe to work with people. People were protected from the risk of harm and received their medicines safely. The risk of infection was controlled because the home was clean and hygienic. Lessons were learnt from when mistakes happened.
People continued to have positive relationships with the staff who were caring and treated people with respect and kindness. There were lots of opportunities for them to get involved in activities and pursue their interests. Relationships with families and friends were supported and encouraged.
The registered manager had systems in place to receive feedback on the quality of care provided. There were quality systems in place which were effective in continually developing the quality of the care that was provided to people.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The inspection took place on 17 June 2015 and was unannounced. We returned on 22 June 2015 to look at staff records and this was announced.
The service provides accommodation for up to four people. At the time of our inspection there were three people using the service. It is a specialist service for adults with learning difficulties and complex needs. It offers care and rehabilitation for people to support them to move into the community. The service has a communal kitchen, dining room and living room. Bedrooms are on two floors and are accessible by stairs.
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.
Staff were trained in safeguarding (protecting people who use care services from abuse) and knew what to do if they were concerned about the welfare of any of the people who used the service. Where people were at risk, staff had the information they needed to help keep them safe.
People were supported by knowledgeable staff who had a good understanding of their needs. They received tailored and individual support that kept them safe, including where their behaviour became challenging.
People received their medicines in a timely manner. They were stored safely and people were supported, where possible, to look after their own. Staff understood people’s health care needs and referred them to health care professionals when necessary. They supported people attending health appointments in innovative ways to ensure that their experiences were as positive as possible.
Staff supported people in a confident manner and understood their needs. We saw people were relaxed in their company.
Staff told us they received regular training that helped them to understand the needs of people, which included their right to make decisions about their day to day lives. People were supported to make decisions about their lifestyle choices and were not restricted.
People’s dietary needs were met and they enjoyed grocery shopping and preparing and cooking food if they wished to.
People were supported by staff who had developed positive and professional working relationships with them. They were were supported to expand their life experiences in positive, valued and meaningful ways that met their cultural and religious needs and enhanced their wellbeing.
People had their needs assessed by the registered manager prior to moving into the service to ensure their needs could be met and that they would complement and fit in with those already receiving a service.
People were involved in the day to day running of the service, which included the recruitment of staff, social events and activities along with household chores. They were supported in innovative ways to make their views known about the service.
The registered manager and staff were committed to meeting the needs of people and improving their life experiences by supporting and encouraging their independence, their achievements and their life aspirations.
Staff were positive about the support they received from the registered manager. Regular meetings, supervision and appraisal provided them with an opportunity to develop and influence the service provided.
The provider had a robust quality assurance system which assessed the quality of the service. Information gathered as part of the quality audits was used to continually develop the service and look for ways in which people using the service could achieve greater independence.
People using the service had limited verbal communication but we observed people being supported by staff on a one to one basis and they appeared comfortable with the support they received from the staff team.
As people were unable to give us their views, we contacted people's family members and friends to get feedback from them; they told us they were happy with the support their relatives received. Comments included, 'I'm very happy with the care, the staff are very approachable and very caring.' And 'The staff cater for my son's individual needs they are very good and he seems very content.'
We saw that people were supported to develop their skills and independence and undertake activities of their choice. For example, on the day of our visit one person was supported by staff with their paid employment, another person was supported to access local community groups in activities of their choice.
People's preferences and the level of support they needed was delivered in line with their individual support plans and people were supported to take their medication as prescribed.
We saw that sufficient numbers of staff were on duty to ensure people's needs were met effectively.
We saw people being supported to follow their choices as they went out to places in the community that they liked.
We saw one person wanted to care for their own medicines and an assessment had been considered so that this could take place. The person's doctor had been included in the decision making process also. Staff were also available to help the person if they should change their mind and request help. We saw staff supporting people whilst encouraging people to be independent and to lead active lives.
We saw communications with representatives were recorded in various places including dairies, support plans and at people's reviews. We saw people were enabled to raise concerns and we saw they were acted on.
The manager and staff told us how the services and support provided at the home had steadily improved with better resources ' financial and people ' being made available. This is particularly well demonstrated in better care documentation and records that were genuinely aimed at a 'person centred approach', continuous improvements in the quality of the premises and more individualised decorating and refurbishments, and improved staffing levels. The latter has lead to staff being able to support a greater level of planned individual activities and more opportunities for individual development. Staff said they 'have achieved real care in the community and a person centred approach' and that 'new ideas have been brought in so that the group are now thinking for themselves within the boundaries of safety'.
Morale of the staff team was positive and, with low turnover of staff, good levels of continuity in care have been achieved and high standards of supportive teamwork have been allowed to flourish.