Archived: United Response - 61 Adkin Way

Updated 22 October 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 12 September 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the service is small and people and staff are often out doing activities and we needed to be sure that someone would be in. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Before the inspection we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give us key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the completed PIR and previous inspection reports before the inspection. We looked at any notifications submitted by the service. Notifications are information about specific events that the provider is required to tell us about. We also reviewed the information we held about the service and the service provider. We sought feedback from professionals who worked closely with the service.

During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager and two care staff. We reviewed a range of records including care records for two people consisting of care plans, risks assessments, and medicine administration records (MAR).We looked at records relating to the management of the service and two staff files. We spoke with two people in the service and two relatives by telephone.

Updated 22 October 2016

We inspected United Response, 61 Adkin Way on the 12 September 2016. The inspection was announced. 61 Adkin Way is a care home without nursing for up to four adults with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of this inspection there were four people living in the home.

There was a registered area 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.

People received good quality care that was responsive to their individual preferences and needs. The service was small and this assisted people receiving individual person centred care. Staff had taken the time to find out what was important to people and ensured that wherever possible people were able to undertake activities they had chosen. Staff showed a good understanding of and appropriate responses to people’s needs and preferences. Relatives described a good and effective staff team that were able to support individuals to get the most out of their lives. It was evident that people passed their time in the way they chose and wherever possible were given opportunities to increase their independence by a service with a positive view on risk taking.

The registered area manager and staff understood what to do if they suspected someone was being abused or harmed. Recruitment practices were robust and contributed to protecting people from staff who were unsuitable to work in adult social care. Medicines were managed and stored safely so that people received their medicines as prescribed. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

Staff had received a wide range of training so that they had a good understanding of how to meet people’s needs. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA provides a legal framework to assess people’s capacity to make certain decisions, at a certain time. Staff were clear about the importance of gaining consent from people.

People participated in all the stages of choosing, planning and the preparation of their meals. People were given guidance and reassurance if they needed it to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Staff made sure that if people became unwell, they were supported to access healthcare professionals for treatment and advice about their health and welfare.

People received care and respect from staff who valued people in a way that respected them as individuals. Staff were respectful of people’s privacy and dignity.

There were systems in place to manage complaints but none had been received over the past year. The complaints procedure was produced in a format people could easily understand. Relatives told us that they had not needed to make a complaint and would discuss with management if they had any concerns which would hopefully avoid a complaint.

The service was well led by a registered manager who people, relatives and staff were confident in. The management was responsible for monitoring the quality and safety of the service, and had done so consistently.