You are here

Archived: Walton Road Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 5 April 2018

During a routine inspection

61 Walton Road is a residential care home that provides accommodation and care for up to three people with autism. At the time of the inspection the home was providing care and support to three people. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At our last inspection of this service on 5 January 2016 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good. The home demonstrated they continued to meet the regulations and fundamental standards.

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.

There were safeguarding and whistle blowing procedures in place and staff had a clear understanding of these procedures. There was enough staff on duty to meet people’s assessed needs. Appropriate recruitment checks were carried out before staff started working at the home. Action was taken to assess any risks to people. People were receiving support with medicines when they were required.

Staff had the knowledge and skills required to meet people needs. 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 support this practice. People were encouraged to eat healthy meals and to cook for themselves. Staff monitored people’s health and welfare and where there were concerns people were referred to appropriate health professionals.

People’s needs were assessed and care plans included detailed information and guidance for staff about how their needs should be met. People’s care records included individual communication profiles that recorded their methods of communicating with staff. The home had a complaints procedure in place in a format that people could understand.

The provider recognised the importance of regularly monitoring the quality of the service they provided to people. Regular health and safety, medicines, fire safety and incidents and accidents audits were carried out at the home. The home took into account people’s and their relatives views of the service through regular satisfaction surveys. Staff said they liked working at the home and they received good support from the registered manager.

Inspection carried out on 5 January 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 5 January 2016 and was unannounced.

MCCH Society Limited - 61 Walton Road is a residential care home which provides care and support for up to three people with autism.

There was a new registered manager who had been in place since October 2015. 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.

Safeguarding adult’s procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported. There was a whistle-blowing procedure available and staff said they would use it if they needed to. Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work and there were enough staff on duty and deployed throughout the home to meet people’s care and support needs and staff received up to date training.

People and their relatives were involved in their care planning where possible. Support plans and risk assessments provided clear information and guidance for staff on how to support people using the service with their needs. Support plans were reflective of people’s individual care and preferences. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals when required. People were supported to have a healthy and balanced diet.

Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work. There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs and staff had received up to date mandatory and refresher training.

None of the people who used the service were on any medication at the time of the inspection. Equipment had been serviced on a regular basis to ensure that it remained suitable for use. Care plans were reflective of people’s individual care and preferences.

The manager and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible. For example to make the own lunch and drinks

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion; while respecting their privacy and dignity. Each person had a key worker assigned to them to give individual and focused support. Staff knew people well and remembered things that were important to them so that they received person-centred care.

People told us that both the registered manager and the deputy manager were always available and could approach them at any time. Systems were in place to monitor and evaluate the quality and safety of the service.

Inspection carried out on 13 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke to two people who used the service and one person's relative. Each person we spoke with was happy living at the service and they told us the staff were good. People told us they were able to participate in regular activities of their choice, and we heard during our visit that some people had gone Christmas shopping and others to a local boxing class. One person's relative we spoke with told us they were "more than pleased" with the support their family member received at the home. They told us they had been invited to contribute to regular care reviews and they were kept informed of their family member�s progress.

We found people were asked for their consent before they were supported, and the provider acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) when it was necessary. People had support plans and risk assessments in place in order to keep them safe, and people received the support they needed. We found people were provided with an adequate choice of food and drink and people's nutritional needs were considered in the support they received. We found the provider had made improvements to quality assurance since our last inspection, and the actions highlighted in recent audits had been implemented. The provider maintained appropriate records and ensured that they were stored appropriately where relevant.

Inspection carried out on 11 February 2013

During a routine inspection

People who used the service we spoke with told us they were happy living at the home and they were happy with the support the staff provided them with. People's relatives we spoke with told us they felt the care and support provided met their family member�s needs. They felt people were well cared for, and they felt they were involved in their family member�s care and support planning. Relatives told us the staff communicated well with people using the service and encouraged people to maintain their independence. People knew how to complain if they had any issues but told us they had not needed to.

We found people and their families were involved in their care and support, and they were able to make decisions where necessary. Staff promoted people's independence and people were encouraged to maintain involvement in the community. People's support needs were planned for which included guidance for staff when supporting people. People had risk assessments in place to ensure their safety was maintained and the provider had procedures and plans in place to deal with emergencies. Safeguarding adult�s policies and procedures were in place. Staff were trained to recognise the signs of abuse and those we spoke to knew how to report concerns. Staff were appropriately supported through induction, training, supervision and appraisals. The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service but recommendations had not always been implemented.