You are here

Norwood - 55 Edgeworth Crescent Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 25 October 2017

During a routine inspection

Norwood - 55 Edgeworth Crescent is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service accommodates up to six people in one adapted building, with four people living there at the time of our visit. The service’s stated specialism is for people who have learning disabilities.

At the last inspection of this service, in August 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’.

At this inspection the service retained a ‘Good’ rating. We found the service to be well organised, and to support people to achieve good outcomes which improved their quality of life.

People using the service and their representatives provided positive feedback about the service. No-one felt improvements were needed.

The service continued to encourage people’s skills and independence. People had been supported to learn to safely travel to places by themselves, manage their own medicines, and undertake household tasks alone. Equipment had been installed to enable people to access their rooms more easily and keep them secure. People who travelled independently also now had safety alarms linked to the service.

People were still being empowered to express their views and make decisions about their care and support, as people were listened to and responded to. 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. The service had an effective complaints procedure that people used when needed.

People had developed positive and trusting relationships with staff who treated them well. People were supported by staff who had skills and knowledge relevant to their support roles. There were enough suitable staff working at the service to keep people safe and meet their needs.

Risks to each person’s health and welfare, and with how the service operated, were identified and managed. Safety was promoted in a way that supported people’s independence. People were supported to take medicines safely. The service followed safeguarding procedures when any abuse of individuals was suspected.

The service supported people to engage in activities that reflected their personal interests, and to develop and maintain strong links with the local community.

People were supported to maintain good health and eat a balanced diet. The service enabled community healthcare professional support to be acquired and followed where needed.

The provider and registered manager promoted a positive, open and empowering culture, both for people using the service and staff.

There continued to be a variety of quality and risk audits used to drive service improvements. Our overall findings, and a service improvement plan, showed these were being achieved.

Inspection carried out on 30/07/2015 and 05/08/2015

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 30 July and 05 August 2015. Our previous inspection, of 01 October 2013, found there to be no breaches of regulations.

‘Norwood - 55 Edgeworth Crescent’ is a residential care home for up to six people. The service’s stated specialism is people who have learning disabilities. There were two vacancies at the time of our visit.

There was a registered manager in place at the service at the time of our inspection. 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.

We found the service to have a strong focus on empowering people using it. People made decisions about their care and support. Whilst the service assessed risks around people’s needs and preferences, people were encouraged to develop skills and their freedom was respected and supported. People were supported to access a range of community activities in line with their preferences and abilities.

Staff understood people’s different ways of communicating, encouraged people to express their views, and acted on people’s choices. There was a range of positive feedback about the service, and we saw evidence of how the service was effective at promoting people’s well-being and reducing instances of behaviours that challenged the service. Positive relationships had been developed between staff and people using the service, and there were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs.

Regular safety checks took place in the service. There were safe systems of supporting people with their medicines and money, and appropriate safeguarding procedures were in place. The service took appropriate action if they believed a person needed to be deprived of their liberty for their own safety.

Staff received appropriate supervision and appraisal at the service. Most staff had up-to-date training, and there was evidence of management oversight of training that was addressing any shortfalls.

There were a variety of quality and risk audits used at the service, and by the provider, that helped to drive service improvements. The provider promoted a positive, open and empowering culture. People’s comments and complaints were listened to and acted on. We found the service to be well organised, and people to have good outcomes.

Inspection carried out on 1, 2 October 2013

During a routine inspection

People who used the service had learning difficulties. On the first day of our inspection, all people who used the service had gone out with care staff. On the second visit we were able to speak with two people. They informed us that they were well cared for and satisfied with the activities provided.

We observed that people who used the service appeared comfortable, happy and were dressed appropriately. Staff were noted to be constantly interacting and talking in a friendly manner with people. People were able to make drinks or access the kitchen whenever they wanted to. Bedrooms had been personalised by people with their pictures and ornaments.

People who used the service informed us that their healthcare needs had been attended to and they had access to their doctors if needed. Care documentation was of a high standard. Assessments, including risk assessments had been carefully prepared. People had been consulted and their care plans had been signed by them and reviewed regularly. People participated in a range of activities. There were suitable arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Staff were knowledgeable regarding their roles and responsibilities. People informed us that there were sufficient staff on duty to care for them.

The home had a complaints procedure. People said they knew who to talk to if they were unhappy with the services provided. The home also had a record of compliments received.

Inspection carried out on 17 January 2013

During a routine inspection

A person who used the service said - ‘The staff are excellent – they make it the best place I’ve been.’ Another reported - ‘They helped convince people I can go shopping on my own’.

People's views and choices were respected and they were treated with dignity. People’s support was well coordinated. They felt safe. Staff were supported and trained to meet the needs of people using the service and there was an effective quality assurance system in place. The service was providing for the care and support needs of the people who used it in a way that promoted their choices and maximised their independence with the minimum restrictions.

Inspection carried out on 9 January 2012

During a routine inspection

We were able to talk to some of the people who use the service and discuss their care. We also observed how staff interacted and responded to people who use the service. We noted that people who use the service appeared relaxed and were able to approach staff and move freely in the home. Some went out to join in community activities accompanied by staff. They stated that there were weekly meetings in the home where people who use the service could express their views and staff had responded to their suggestions.

The overall feedback we received from them was positive and indicated that people who use the service felt that they were well cared for. The home has arrangements in place to protect and safeguard people who use the service and they informed us that they felt safe and staff had treated them with respect. We however, noted that the safeguarding policy had not been updated and we have therefore made an improvement action regarding this.

Staff were caring and knowledgeable regarding the individual needs of people who use the service. People who use the service and their representatives spoke highly of staff. Training records we examined indicated that staff had been given the necessary essential training. Supervision sessions with the manager had been arranged and documented.

The home had consulted and asked people who use the service and their representatives about their views of the service. We were also informed by the registered manager that staff had regular one to one sessions with people who use the service during which they asked them how they were getting on. Quality monitoring checks had been done by the area manager and survey forms had been completed by people who use the service and their representatives.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)