• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: United Response - 1 Arundel Close

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1 Arundel Close, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN14 0PR (01249) 651112

Provided and run by:
United Response

All Inspections

20 September 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 20 September 2015 and was unannounced. The last inspection took place on 16 April 2014 and no breaches of legal requirements were found at this time.

The home provides care and accommodation for up to four people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were three people living in the home. There was a registered manager in place at the home. 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.

The service was safe in most aspects; however more needed to be done to ensure that the risks associated with infection control were minimised. A shower room was in need of deep cleaning and renovation. The area was dirty and the tiles were mouldy, as was the silicone filler. This posed a risk to people as this area could not be effectively cleaned.

People in the home were supported by safe numbers of staff who were able to meet their needs, and people’s rights were protected in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People’s capacity was considered in decisions being made about their care and support and best interest decisions were made when necessary. Staffing levels were flexible to accommodate the needs of people and the activities they chose to do in their local community.

Support plans were representative of people’s current needs and gave detailed guidance for staff to follow. Staff understood people’s individual needs and preferences which meant that they received care in accordance with their wishes.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring in their approach and were treated with dignity and respect. This was confirmed by the observations we made during our inspection.

Safe procedures and a policy was in place to guide staff to manage people’s medicines safely. Medicines that we checked matched the records that were kept.

The provider had ensured that staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles effectively. Training was provided and staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people’s needs.

A detailed system was in place to monitoring the quality of the service that people received. This included a system to manage people’s complaints.

11 July 2013

During a routine inspection

People lived in a comfortable and well maintained house. They were supported by staff who worked well together for the benefit of people. The staff made day to day decisions and gave each other feedback on their performance. The organisation supported staff.

Before people received support their consent was sought. People had varied and individual lifestyles of their choosing. Care and support needs were assessed, monitored and reviewed and records reflected this.

People appeared happy and a relative we spoke with was complimentary about the service provided and the qualities of the staff. There was a system for managing complaints but the service had only received compliments.

17 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with people briefly and ate lunch with them. They had chosen poached eggs on toast and both appeared to enjoy their meal. We observed one person making fruit scones after lunch and we were told the other person was going to make savoury scones afterwards. People appeared happy and comfortable in their home.

We looked at the policy for safeguarding vulnerable people. It had been updated in November 2012 and was included in the quality manual 'Getting it right'. It defined what constituted abuse and provided information for staff about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff we spoke with told us they felt supported by regional, area and staff they worked alongside. They spoke of the collective team management of the home who provided them with support. The registered manager said they were well supported by their line manager and peer.

Staff received appropriate professional development. The organisation had produced a statement for staff development outlining its commitment and its expectations of support workers.

People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. The annual survey was about to be sent to all people who used the service, their relatives and others such as people's social workers and health professionals. We saw that this had been produced in two formats, including an easy read version with pictures.

21 September 2011

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two of the people that live in the home. They spoke fondly of living there and were happy with the opportunities afforded them. One person commented on how much they had enjoyed their lunch while the other talked about the facilities available in the house. One of the people spoke about the recent ballet they had seen in Bristol that another of the people would be going to see shortly after our visit. One person's relative spoke highly about the care provided saying that they could find no fault, were pleased with their family member's placement there and felt that they were treated with respect and had good opportunities.