We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sharon and Glen Arnott - 32 Beamont Way 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 Sharon and Glen Arnott - 32 Beamont Way, you can give feedback on this service.
At the last inspection on 8 November 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection the service remains good in safe, effective, responsive and well led and has improved to outstanding in caring.
The service has two registered managers and one of these registered manager’s is also the provider. Throughout this report we have referred to them as the registered manager and the provider. Both the provider and registered manager were available throughout 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.
At this inspection staff demonstrated that they continuously and consistently looked for ways to improve and provide the opportunity for meaningful experiences. Therefore we have rated caring as Outstanding.
The management and staff had built up sincere relationships with people and their relatives based on mutual respect and trust. There were clear friendships between people and staff as they chatted and engaged with people ensuring that they were involved in all aspects of their care.
Relatives highly praised the care and love shown to their family members and the impact that it had on people commenting “They do an excellent job; well it’s more than a job to the managers and staff there.”
The management and staff demonstrated a level of compassion that went above their caring role when people had to leave the home to go to hospital for planned or unplanned treatment. Staff would spend time over their normal working hours to sit and be with people in an unfamiliar setting to reassure them and provide that consistency and care.
The service provided continued to be safe. Staff had all received safeguarding training, and were aware of their responsibilities in reporting concerns, and the concerns of those they supported. Risks to people’s personal safety had been assessed. Plans were in place to minimise these and support people to be as independent as possible.
The service continued to be effective. People continued to be supported by staff with the necessary skills and knowledge to fulfil their role. Each staff member had their own training plan in place, which showed when refresher training was next due. They were encouraged to undertake higher level training, such as their Health and Social care Diploma. The registered manager spoke passionately about the training available for staff and said they were happy to source whatever training staff showed an interest in.
The service worked well with external organisations to ensure that people received effective care, support and treatment when needed. Health and social care professionals spoke highly of the service and the commitment staff showed to people.
People were actively consulted and involved in making decisions about their care. The registered manager and staff were able to explain how they applied the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) in practice when supporting people to make decisions. However we saw that two capacity assessments were not in the care plan for one person who had monitoring equipment in place to keep them safe. The provider explained that the person’s social worker had completed this document and they had not yet been sent the copy. Following our inspection the provider informed us that the MCA’s for this person were now in place.
Care, treatment and support plans were personalised. The examples seen were thorough and reflected people’s needs and choices. Information was clearly recorded on what each person could undertake independently and the areas they needed extra support from staff.
The provider and registered manager were both effective role models for the service promoting a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering. The service demonstrated a well-developed understanding of equality, diversity and human rights and put these into practice. The management were very visible in the service and had formed close relationships with people who told us “I can talk to the managers and they are lovely”,
The quality of care and service continued to be maintained. This was monitored through regular weekly and monthly audits. The provider and registered manager continued to understand their responsibilities around reporting to the Care Quality Commission any notifiable events or incidents.
This inspection took place on 8 November 2015 and was unannounced. The last inspection took place on 1 December 2013 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 four people living in the home. There was a registered manager in place. 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’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. Staff were trained in this area and had a good understanding of the steps to follow.
Staffing levels were flexible to accommodate the needs of people and the activities they chose to participate in, within their local community. People we spoke with confirmed this and the rota we saw confirmed this. People had choice about their daily activities and were involved in their support planning to choose what activities they wanted to undertake.
Sufficient numbers of staff were available to support people’s individual needs safely. This was observed throughout the inspection and included the lunchtime activity, where we saw people were supported with their nutritional needs.
Support plans and risk assessments 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. Risk assessments were balanced with safety and independence promotion.
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 and the people that we spoke with.
Safe procedures and a policy was in place to guide staff to manage people’s medicines safely. Staff received regular training that ensured best practice was followed.
People and staff that we spoke with told us people received a good quality of care and support. They confirmed people’s needs were managed safely and staff responded quickly to any changes in their health needs.
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.
The service was well led. Staff and people who used the service spoke highly of the management team and the vision of the service. There was a positive attitude amongst staff towards their work and staff responded well to the direction of the management team. A detailed system was in place to monitor the quality of the service that people received. This included a system to manage people’s complaints.
Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.
People were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink and supported to eat and drink in sufficient quantities.
There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. One person who lived at the home said 'there are always enough staff'.
There was an effective complaints system available. One person said 'If I was not happy I'd tell the boss, she'd help me'.
Staff had received training in dignity in care. One of the people living in the home had been involved in the training. They told us 'I feel very involved and independent. I've had a big input in my care plan.'
A person told us about support they received for improving their mental health. They were proud of progress they had made in their confidence. They said staff understood their needs well.
A member of staff we spoke with was clear about their safeguarding responsibilities and how they would respond to any suspicion of abuse. We saw how the home had responded to a risk by making a safeguarding referral. They had acted on professional advice to find ways to make people safe. People living in the home told us they felt safe as a result.