Background to this inspection
Updated
14 January 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 01& 03 December 2015 and was unannounced.
The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We checked the information we held about this service and the service provider. We also contacted the Local Authority. No concerns had been raised and the service met the regulations we inspected against at the last inspection which took place in January 2014.
During our inspection we observed how staff interacted with people who used the service.
Some people had limited verbal communication but we were able to interact with them and to observe their interactions with staff.
We spoke with four people who used the service and one relative. We also spoke with the registered manager and four support workers.
We reviewed two people’s care records, three medication records, four staff files and records relating to the management of the service, such as quality audits.
Updated
14 January 2016
This inspection took place on 01& 03 December 2015 and was unannounced.
The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Fishermead Boulevard is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to six people who have a learning disability. It is part of the Fremantle Trust. On the day of our inspection six people were using the service.
There was a registered manger 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 felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and how to report them.
People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be.
There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support people with their needs.
Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service.
Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service.
Staff received a comprehensive induction process and ongoing training. They were well supported by the registered manager and had regular one to one time for supervisions.
Staff had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people.
Staff gained consent before supporting people.
People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people.
People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required.
People were supported to access a variety of health professionals when required, including dentist, opticians and specialists.
Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well.
People and relatives where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.
People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.
People were supported to follow their interests.
A complaints procedure was in place and accessible to all. People knew how to complain.
Effective quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.