You are here

Archived: Station Road Good

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 December 2015

We inspected Station Road on 21 May 2015. This was an unannounced inspection.

Station Road provides accommodation for up to 12 people with learning disabilities who have nursing needs. The accommodation comprises of two purpose built bungalows, each with six single rooms. The service is located within the village of Clayton, on the outskirts of Bradford.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

We spoke with staff who told us they had received safeguarding training and could tell us what action they would take if they had a concern. The service had a safeguarding policy in place. Safeguarding was discussed in team meetings as a set agenda item.

The service used equipment to help in moving and handling. We saw equipment had been serviced. Staff told us they received training on how to use the equipment and felt confident when they used it. We observed staff completed visual checks on equipment each time they used it.

Staff told us they had received regular training and felt they were competent to complete their role. We looked at the training matrix. Although the majority of training had been completed by most staff, there were gaps where staff needed to update their knowledge on some courses.

The registered manager told us how they set the staffing levels in the service. Staffing levels were maintained to support people with their needs at all times. We saw morning shifts started with three members of staff with an additional fourth member joining later on in the day to support with the busier times. During the day of inspection we saw everyone had their needs met within a swift time frame.

People received their medicines in line with their prescription. Medicines were stored appropriately and administered by trained staff. We observed staff followed good practice. For example handing out one person’s medicines at a time and signing after people had taken it. All bottles with one exception had stickers on that listed the date of opening.

Staff were recruited in line with the provider’s policy. We saw staff had been interviewed and had been ID checked, references checked and criminal background checked. Staff told us they received an induction program to work through when they started with the provider.

We observed practices in the service. We saw people were given privacy and had their dignity respected. Staff knocked on people’s doors before entering and explained what they were doing before they did it. Staff told us they had a good knowledge of people and how they communicated. With this knowledge staff could identify if people did not want to do an activity or refused a request made by staff. This told us people had the opportunity to have their choices heard by staff who understood them.

People were encouraged to maintain a level of independence. Staff told us they get people to do as much as they can for themselves. We observed one person being supported to prepare their own lunch.

Before people moved to live at the service, an assessment of their needs had been carried out. One of the two properties was in the process of being decommissioned and people were moving to the second property or elsewhere. Checks to see if their needs could still be met had been completed.

Care records were reviewed on a regular basis. Records were written in a person centred way and reflected the person’s needs. Records and documentation were in the process of changing which could cause confusion. Staff felt the new documents were positive and easy to follow. Care records had involvement from health professionals and advocates. Daily notes reflected interaction with other health professionals. Staff told us they would refer people to health professionals if they felt they would benefit from professional advice. Care records included people’s personal preferences, goals and activities. Activities were on going and people were given a choice if they wanted to do an activity or not.

We saw the service had made Deprivation of Liberty’s Safeguard referrals which had been granted to deprive people of their liberty in legal way to keep them safe. We looked at the documentation and saw appropriate information had been captured.

People had individual meal plans created. Staff supported people to make their own food. We asked staff about the different way in which people ate their food. Staff were able to tell us people’s dietary needs and how they supported people with eating. We observed people eating their food over meal times. People had a choice of food or drink and could change their mind.

The registered manager completed quality audits to analyse performance and identify improvements. Audits completed created an action plan. Feedback to team members was given during team meetings.

The service had a complaints policy in place. We did not see any complaints recorded in the previous 12 months of the date of inspection. The registered manager told us that complaints would be responded to in line with their policy. The complaints policy was available as an easy read document for the people that used the service. The service notified the Care Quality Commission of events in line with their registration.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 December 2015

The service was safe.

People received their medicines in line with their prescription. Medicines were administered by appropriately trained staff.

People’s care records included assessed risk. Risk assessments were completed for each individual risk and included ways to reduce the risk.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 December 2015

The service was effective.

People received food and drink in a way that supported their needs. People had access to health care professionals.

Staff told us they received training to complete their roles. We looked at the training matrix and saw most staff had completed sufficient training but there were some gaps in staff training.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 December 2015

The service was caring.

We asked staff about people that used the service. Staff told us specific details about individuals. We observed staff supported people in line with their care records.

We observed people were treated with privacy and dignity. Staff respected peoples choices and knocked on their doors before entering.

People were encouraged to maintain their independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 December 2015

The service was responsive.

Care records were written in a person centred way. Care records reflected people’s personal preferences and were reviewed regularly.

The service had a complaints policy in place. No complaints had been received in the past 12 months.

People had their needs assessed before moving to the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 December 2015

The service was well-led.

The service had a registered manager in post.

The registered manager completed audits of the service. Audits completed identified shortfalls and areas for improvement.

The service recognised lessons learnt and improvements that could be made.