Walsingham Support - 30 & 32 Church Lane

Walsingham Support – 30 & 32 Church Lane is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 12 people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection, there were eight people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Staff clearly understood people’s varying needs and how to keep them safe. People were observed to be content in the company of staff.

Safeguarding procedures were in place and followed by the staff team. Following any incidents, lessons learnt were shared with the staff team.

Risk assessments were completed and reviewed regularly, including after incidents. Staff felt well supported in managing risk.

Due to COVID-19 restrictions people had not been able to enjoy as much freedom in the community as they had previously. However, staff supported people with in-house activities and to maintain contact with relatives.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 18 April 2019).

Why we inspected

We undertook this targeted inspection to check on a specific concern we had about safeguarding and risk management relating to people's safety and wellbeing.

The overall rating for the service has not changed following this targeted inspection and remains Good.

CQC have introduced targeted inspections to follow up on Warning Notices or to check specific concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿ Some people who lived at the home were able to communicate verbally but for people who were unable to speak to us we observed staff supported them with a range of communication aids, which included sign language and interpreting people’s body language with regards to meeting their needs and wishes.

¿ People continued to feel safe living at the service. Risks in relation to people’s health, safety and welfare had been identified and action taken where appropriate. Staffing levels were appropriate to meet the needs of the people using the service. Medicines were safely managed. There were systems in place to monitor incidents and accidents and learn from these.

¿ Staff were competent and knew the people they supported well. People’s care, health and cultural needs were identified so staff could meet these. People had their nutritional needs met. People were supported to maintain good health. Staff made referrals to health professionals when required. Staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and ensured people consented to their care.

¿ People continued to receive care from staff who were kind and caring. People’s privacy and dignity was protected and promoted. People had developed positive relationships with staff who had a good understanding of their needs and preferences. One relative said. “[name] loves living at Church Lane as it feels like their real home with staff that care and keep [name] safe and happy.”

¿ People received care that met their needs. Care plans gave details of how people would like their needs met. People took part in a range of group and one-to-one activities depending on their preferences. Information was displayed on how to make a complaint and in a pictorial format, that could be easily understood. Relatives also told us they knew how to complain.

¿ People, visitors and staff told us the service was well managed and had an open and friendly culture. Staff said the service had a family atmosphere and they felt well-supported. The current manager and staff worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure people got the care and support they needed. One person said, "I think [manager] is a very nice person, I have great respect for job they are doing.”

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 9 March 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remains Good.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor all intelligence received about the service to ensure the next inspection is scheduled accordingly.

30 & 32 Church Lane is a residential care home that provides accommodation and support for up to twelve people with learning disabilities, sensory impairment and autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were twelve people living at the home.

The home had a registered 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.

The provider had effective processes in place to protect people from avoidable harm and to ensure their safety. There were risk assessments in place that gave staff guidance on how to minimise risks to people and how to safeguard them from possible harm.

Medicines were administered safely and people were supported to access the necessary healthcare services to maintain their well-being.

People had access to nutritious food and drink throughout the day and were involved in deciding what to eat and drink. Those who needed support during meal times were assisted with their meals and where people wanted to eat privately, this was supported.

People were supported to maintain their independence and encouraged to pursue hobbies that they are interested in. They were aware of the provider’s complaints system and knew who to raise complaints with if they had any.

The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there was a sufficient number of staff to support people safely. Staff were trained to meet people’s individual needs and were supported by way of regular supervision and appraisals. They understood their job roles and responsibilities and actively asked people’s consent before providing them with care.

The home complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The staff were caring and respected people’s privacy and dignity.

People’s care needs had been assessed and personalised care plans put in place, giving the staff team guidance in how to support people in a consistent way. These care plans also detailed people’s individual preferences and choices.

The provider had a formal system for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people and acted on this to improve the quality of the service. They also had an effective quality monitoring process to ensure they were meeting the required standards of care.

We found the provider had taken reasonable steps to involve people and/or their representatives in decision making processes about the support they provided to people. We also found that the provider had implemented new systems to ensure people's care records and support plans were reviewed regularly.

We found the provider had systems in place to ensure people were safely administered their prescribed medication. Staff felt they were sufficiently supported to perform their roles. There were systems in place to ensure that the best interest of people who could not consent was appropriately decided. The care plans had not been reviewed regularly and not kept up-to-date.