• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: United Response - 17 John Street

Overall: Outstanding read more about inspection ratings

17 John Street, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 2SQ (01622) 664021

Provided and run by:
United Response

All Inspections

17 & 18 August 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection was carried out on 17 and 18 August 2015 and was unannounced. At the time of our inspection the service was providing support to five people.

The service provides care for adults who have complex needs and learning disabilities. The provider had considered people’s needs and abilities when designing the premises. The building had been adapted to provide a spacious living area for people who use wheelchairs and to meet people’s health, physical and wellbeing needs. People had easy access to a well maintained garden and a spacious conservatory. Raised beds provided opportunities for people to be involved in growing flowers and vegetables. Staff and the registered manager had added finishing touches through imaginative décor, colourful soft furnishings and pictures which created a welcoming and homely environment for people to enjoy.

The service provided amazing care and support to people to enable them to live fulfilled and meaningful lives. Staff were skilled at ensuring people were safe whilst encouraging them to stretch their potential and achieve as much independence as possible. People and relatives were very positive about the service they received. Comments included “We are so pleased and satisfied of the care that my relative receives here”, “This place is led well from the top and it spills down to the lower levels extremely well” and “It is an excellent place”.

The leadership provided by the registered manager, with superb support from the provider, was excellent. The registered manager and staff team demonstrated passion and commitment to providing the best possible care and opportunities for people.

There was enough staff to meet people’s needs and to ensure they were able to access activities and be part of their local community. The provider operated safe and robust recruitment and selection procedures which people were involved in where possible.

Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity. All interactions between staff and people were caring and respectful, with staff being consistently patient, kind and compassionate. Staff demonstrated affection and warmth in their contact with people, which was clearly reciprocated.

Thorough investigations had been carried out in response to safeguarding incidents and these had also been appropriately reported to CQC by the provider. Learning from incidents was evident in adjustments to procedures such as how medication was handled, to ensure people were protected from harm. Comprehensive audits were carried out by the management team to ensure the appropriate improvements took place within the home.

Records and conversation with the registered manager and relatives showed that people were listened to and complaints or concerns were taken seriously and responded to appropriately. There was a clear complaints procedure which was available in pictorial form.

The registered manager ensured that staff had a full understanding of people’s support needs and had the skills and knowledge to meet them. Training records were up to date and staff received regular supervisions and appraisals. Each member of staff had a personal development plan to enable them to think creatively about the support they provided to people. Staff were able to access additional training to ensure they understood and could support people effectively. Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and received excellent support from the provider and registered manager to provide care for people.

A variety of choices of food and drinks were offered at the home. Staff used a number of different methods to tempt the appetites of people who were reluctant to eat. Staff supported people to eat and drink with patience and dignity. A holistic approach was taken to supporting and promoting people’s health and wellbeing. The registered manager was proactive in seeking advice and input from a range of therapists, health and social care professionals on behalf of people.

The provider demonstrated how they had sustained outstanding practice, development and improvement at the service. The leadership sought out creative ways to provide a personalised service and had achieved good results through close working with other agencies. Staff recognised the importance of new concepts of care as a way to improve people’s standard of living. They were highly motivated and were actively involved in and contributed to continuous improvements in care.

Staff had received training in Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to make sure they understood how to protect people’s rights. There were guidance in relation MCA and people were asked for their consent before staff carried out any care or treatment. CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The registered manager, provider and staff ensured that people were supported in ways that did not restrict their freedom and were looked after appropriately.

People who used the service, family members and external agencies were highly complementary about the standard of care provided. The registered manager involved families and other agencies to ensure people received the support they needed to express their views and make decisions that were in their best interests.

Staff supported people with patience and an unhurried approach to ensure they promoted active involvement their care and do as much as possible for themselves.

People had full, varied and personalised activity programmes. These were designed to provide a variety of familiar and new experiences for people to lead fulfilled lives in accordance with their individual interests and abilities. People were encouraged and supported to engage with their local community through involvement with their local church, the local library and visits to local amenities such as pubs, leisure centres and the library.

There was a strong emphasis on person centred care. All the care records showed people’s needs were continually reviewed. The plans ensured staff had all the guidance and information they needed to enable them to provide individualised care and support. People and their family members were consulted and involved in assessments and reviews.

The registered manager demonstrated passion and commitment to people, strong values and a desire to learn about and implement best practice throughout the service. Staff were motivated and proud of their work they did. The service had developed and sustained effective links with organisations that helped them develop best practice and contribute to the development of other organisations that supported people with disabilities.

The registered manager used effective systems to continually monitor the quality of the service and had on-going plans for improving the service people received. The provider gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources including people who used the service, their family and friends and external agencies. This was used to enable the provider to identify where improvement was needed and to implement and sustain continuous improvement in the service.

10 December 2013

During a routine inspection

Most of the people who lived at the service were not able to share their views with us due to communication difficulties. However, we spoke with two family members who were both very positive about the service. We also reviewed comments made by family members in response to a survey carried out by the home in August 2013. We saw that all of the comments were positive. One family member said that "Staff are always welcoming and friendly". Another said they were "Very happy" with the care their relative received.

We spoke with one person who lived at the home. They told us they were happy living there. They said they liked their keyworker and the food was "Lovely".

We reviewed the way the service managed medicines. There were a number of improvements that had been made in response to a CQC inspection in March 2013 that found the service was not compliant with regulations relating to the management of medicines. We saw that changes such as increased monitoring of administration had improved the way medication was managed.

We looked at how staff were recruited and considered if appropriate checks were in place to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. We reviewed recruitment records for two staff and saw that Disclosure and Barring Service checks had been carried out before they started working at the service.

We reviewed records that were maintained at the home and found that they were appropriately stored and sufficiently detailed.

8 March 2013

During a routine inspection

People told us that they were happy with the home and the care that people received. Relatives told us that people were safe and that they received their medication safely and appropriately. People said that staff seemed trained for their job and if they had any issues with any aspect of the care they would complain to the manager. One relative said, "X has a varied social life and the staff and premises are brilliant". Another relative said, "The staff are exceptional and they all put in 100%".

We found that people received care and support which generally met their needs and that people were able to access the community frequently with the assistance of the staff team. We found that people were cared for by staff who knew how to safeguard them from potential abuse. We saw that staff received training and supervision from the management team to enable them to perform their role. However, we felt that systems in place to prevent medication errors were not working and there were errors in both administering medication and recording it properly. We further found that there were not always systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service or assess and manage risks. We saw that systems which had been adopted were not always effective and that management staff had failed to identify this and act upon it.