You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at The Laurels. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 November 2016

We undertook an announced inspection on 11 October 2016. We gave the provider 24 hours’ notice of our intention to undertake an inspection. This was because the organisation was a small service and we needed to ensure that the people living at the home would be available.

The Laurels is registered to care for up to six people with mental health needs or learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at the service.

There was a registered manager for this service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered providers and registered managers 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 said the staff and management team were caring and always treated them with dignity and respect. They explained how staff supported them to achieve their chosen goals which improved their well-being. Relatives told us they were involved as part of the team to support their family member. All the people we spoke with and the feedback collected by the service said how happy people were to be living at the home.

The management team had a clear ethos that people using the service were at the heart of everything they did. People told us they were important to the staff and the management team. They said they were regularly asked their views about if they were happy with the support they received. People who lived at the home had regular meetings where they could discuss any aspect of their support.

People we spoke with said they had support from regular staff who knew them well. Staff we spoke with recognised the different types of abuse. There were systems in place to guide staff in reporting any concerns. Staff were knowledgeable about how to manage people’s individual risks, these focussed on supporting people to achieve their goals. People were supported to receive their medicines by staff who were trained and knew about the risks associated with people’s medicines.

Staff had up to date knowledge and training to support people living at the home. Staff always ensured people agreed to the support they received. The management team regularly reviewed how people were supported to make decisions. People were encouraged to make their own choices about the food they ate. They explained that they were supported to make their own decisions and be as independent as they could. People and their relatives told us staff would access health professionals as soon as they were needed.

People and their relatives knew how to raise complaints and the management team had arrangements in place to ensure people were listened to and appropriate action taken. Staff were involved in regular meetings and one to one time with the management team to share their views and concerns about the quality of the service. People and staff said the management team were accessible and supportive to them. The staff team were adaptable to changes in peoples’ needs and knew people well to recognise when additional support was needed.

Staff we spoke with said the leadership from the registered manager was inspirational and motivated them to provide quality care for people living at the home.

The management team monitored the quality of the service in an open way. The registered manager ensured there was a culture of openness and inclusion for people using the service and staff. The management team had systems in place to identify improvements and action them in a timely way. The registered manager and the staff team had been nominated through the providers reward system for awards nationally.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 November 2016

The service was safe

People were supported by staff that knew how to provide care in a safe way. People benefitted from regular staff that knew them well and managed their identified risks. People were supported with their medicines in a safe way.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 November 2016

The service was effective

People were supported by staff with up to date training and who were knowledgeable about how to support them. People received support from staff who respected their right to make their own decisions. People made their own choices about what they wanted to eat. People were supported to access health care when they needed to.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 November 2016

The service was caring

People benefitted from inclusive care from staff. People received caring and compassionate support from a staff team that enabled people to live their lives as they chose. Staff respected people's dignity and worked with people to achieve as much independence as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 November 2016

The service was responsive

People were involved in how they were supported by staff who listened and were adaptable to their needs. People were encouraged to follow their aspirations and achieve their goals. People were regularly asked for their opinions on the care they received. People and their relatives were confident that any concerns they raised would be responded to appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 November 2016

The service was well-led.

People, relatives and staff felt supported by the management team. The culture of the service was to focus on each person as an individual and to involve them with all aspects of their care. The provider and registered manager regularly completed checks to aid continuous improvement.