Background to this inspection
Updated
4 July 2018
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.
The inspection took place on 30 April and 3 May 2018 and was announced on both days. The provider was given 72 hours’ notice because the service is small and we needed to ensure people and staff were available for the inspection. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors on day one and one inspector on day two.
Before the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included information from statutory notifications and the Provider Information Return (PIR). Notifications are when registered providers send us information about certain changes, events or incidents that occur within the service as required by law. We had not received any notifications from the service. The PIR is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We sought feedback from commissioners of the service prior to our visit. This information was used to plan our inspection.
During the inspection we spoke with three people and two of their relatives. We spent time in the communal areas and observed how staff interacted with people. We spoke to the registered manager, two carers and a human resources administrator. We received feedback from two professionals visiting the service at the time of the inspection. A further professional was contacted for feedback but no response was received. A range of records were reviewed including the recruitment, supervision, appraisal and training records for two staff. We saw three people’s care plans and the medication records for the six people living at the service. Various policies and procedures and information relating to the day to day running of the service were looked at.
Updated
4 July 2018
The inspection took place on 30 April and 3 May 2018 and was announced on both days. We gave the provider 72 hours’ notice because the service supports a small number of people and we needed to ensure people and staff were available to carry out the inspection.
Henshaws Society for Blind People 16 Spring Mount is a care home. 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. Both aspects were looked at during this inspection. The service can accommodate up to six people. Six people were living at the service when we inspected. All of the people had a sensory impairment and/ or learning disability and/ or autism spectrum disorder. The service supports people between the ages of 18 and 65.
The care 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.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good. We saw improvements in responsiveness and this area was now Outstanding. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
There were systems in place to keep people safe, including safe recruitment, staffing levels, appropriate use of risk assessments and completed safety and equipment checks of the building. Where people presented with behaviours which may challenge the service they had care plans in place containing information about when this behaviour may arise and how to support the person. We saw that staff had not been observed as competent to complete a specific clinical procedure. The registered manager and local district nursing team were working together to address this.
Staff had received the appropriate training and support to enable them to deliver effective care and support. They worked together to ensure people received consistent support and accessed healthcare services when required. People were at the centre of their care planning and were supported to be as independent as possible. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff assisted them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service promoted this practice.
People and their relatives spoke highly of the care at the service. People had meaningful interactions and relationships with others living at the service and staff. This meant people knew staff would provide them with emotional support when needed and treat them respectfully. Information including the complaints policy and safeguarding was readily available in people’s preferred format to meet the communication needs of people living at the service.
People received highly personalised care. They set their own goals and were supported to achieve these. People had opportunities to try new activities and develop specific interests. Staff worked flexibly to ensure people could attend their activities and understood the importance of these to individuals.
There was a registered manager in post, who was available for people, their relatives and staff to speak to. Feedback and suggestions were welcomed. People were actively involved in making decisions about the service and making changes that met their needs. There was evidence of these changes being made and people benefiting from this.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.