Archived: Adrian House - Leeds

We found the following examples of good practice.

We saw clear infection prevention control (IPC) signs reminding everyone at the point of entry and throughout the home about procedures for infection control. We observed staff wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

The home was accessing regular testing for both staff and residents. The service was encouraging visitors, phone calls and skype to family and friends. The owner told us that people regularly visited friends and upon arrival back home Covid procedures were followed to ensure everyone's safety. People enjoyed walking around in the large garden when they were isolating at home. The owner told us these supported peoples wellbeing.

The service was clean and uncluttered, and the owner was aware of their responsibilities around having policies and procedures in place for staff around Covid.

We spoke to one member of staff who told us they had all the PPE they needed and felt supported.

Adrian House is registered to provide accommodation for adults under 65 years of age who require nursing or personal care and have a diagnosis of a learning disability and or a mental health condition. On the day of our inspection six people were living in the home.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People’s experience of using the service

People were supported safely and protected from harm. There were systems in place to reduce the risk of abuse and to assess and monitor potential risks to people.

The management of medicines was safe. Risk assessments had been completed and were regularly reviewed. Incidents and accidents were managed effectively; lessons were learned to prevent future risks.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff to meet the needs of people who used the service. Staff completed training, supervisions and appraisals.

People were well cared for by staff who treated them with respect and dignity. People were involved in decisions about their care. People's right to privacy was maintained by staff.

Staff understood people’s likes, dislikes and preferences and people were offered choices about their care.

People were involved in meal choices and supported to maintain a balanced diet. Health needs were regularly monitored, and staff followed the advice health care professionals gave them.

Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive was possible.

A complaints system was in place and complaints were managed effectively. People told us they knew how to complain if needed.

The provider had embedded quality assurance systems to monitor the quality and safety of the care provided. People were asked for their views and their suggestions were used to improve the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for the service was good (published February 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up

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

Adrian House is a small family run home for men with learning disabilities and is registered to provide accommodation and personal care. It currently provides this service for six men. The accommodation is in two joined terrace houses in the Chapeltown area of Leeds.

Rating at last inspection

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

Rating at this inspection

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated

People told us they felt safe and secure living at this service and their health care needs were met. It was evident from our discussions with staff they had an in-depth knowledge of people’s care and support needs. Staff knew about people’s interests and how they preferred to spend their time. There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and competent staff. Care plans were detailed and person centred. People were empowered to take responsibility and were involved in the running of the service. There was evidence of checks carried out to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.

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 supported this practice.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected.

We used the information to answer the five key questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people who used the service and the staff told us.

Is the service Safe?

We did not look at regulations under this domain at this inspection.

Is the service Effective?

We did not look at regulations under this domain at this inspection.

Is the service Caring?

We found staff we spoke with demonstrated a good knowledge of people's needs and were able to explain how individuals preferred their care and support to be delivered.

We found the atmosphere within the home was warm and friendly and we saw staff approached individual people in a way which showed they knew the person well and knew how best to assist them.

Is the service Responsive?

We did not look at regulations under this domain at this inspection.

Is the service Well led?

We saw the home held meetings for people who used the service to give them the opportunity to share their views and make suggestions for improvements to the service.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service that people received. We looked at a selection of reports which showed the provider had assessed and monitored the quality of service provision.

People's needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. The care plans contained a good level of information setting out exactly how each person should be supported to ensure that their needs were met. One person told us, 'I feel settled and I enjoy living here, I am happy here.' Another person said, 'I am happy living here.'

Medicines were prescribed and given to people appropriately. People we spoke with said that they received their medication on time and when they needed it.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.

There were quality monitoring programmes in place, which included people giving feedback about their care, support and treatment. This provided a good overview of the quality of the service's provided. However, this was not always documented.