We carried out a review of the data available to us about 35/37 Solna Road on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about 35/37 Solna Road, you can give feedback on this service.
35/37 Solna Road is a residential care home providing personal care to nine people on the day of the inspection.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 11 people. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However. the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were well cared for by a staff team who had worked with them for many years and knew their needs well.
People were supported to engage in a range of activities both within the home and in the community.
Risks had been identified and were well managed by staff who knew people well. Risk management plans gave staff information they needed to reduce risks of harm or injury to people.
People's needs were assessed, and information was used to form personalised plans of care.
There were enough staff on shift to meet people's needs. Staff were safely recruited.
Medicines were managed safely, however we found recent recording errors which were rectified, and actions put in place to reduce the risk of this happening again.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
There were processes to audit the quality and safety of the service and where areas for improvement were identified, these were acted on.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
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 this service was good (published 2 September 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection on 27 and 28 November 2014 the home was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the home remained ‘Good’.
The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and the associated regulations on how the home is run.
People's rights were not always protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as assessments had not been carried out to determine people’s capacity to make certain decisions. Deprivation of Liberty safeguarding (DoLS) applications had been made to deprive people of their liberties lawfully.
Risks had been identified and assessed that provided information on how to mitigate risks to keep people safe.
Medicines were being managed safely.
Staff had the knowledge, training and skills to care for people effectively. Staff received regular supervision and support to carry out their roles.
People had choices during meal times. People and relatives told us they enjoyed the food. People’s weights were regularly monitored.
People had access to healthcare services.
People and relatives told us that staff were friendly and caring. Our observations confirmed this.
People were treated in a respectful and dignified manner by staff who understood the need to protect people's human rights.
There was a programme of activities. These activities took place regularly.
People received care that was shaped around their individual needs, interests and preferences. Care plans were person centred.
Staff felt well supported by the management team and people and relatives were complimentary about the management of the home.
Quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place to make continuous improvements.
We undertook this unannounced inspection on 29 & 30 June 2015. 35-37 Solna Road is a care home which is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for a maximum of eleven people with learning and physical disabilities. At this inspection there were nine people living in the home.
At our last inspection on 18 September 2014 the service did not meet Regulation 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 Safeguarding people who use services from abuse. At this inspection we found that this regulation had been met.
The home has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People and their relatives informed us that they were satisfied with the care and services provided. People stated that they were treated with respect and felt safe in the home. Some people had complex needs and did not provide us with feedback. However, we observed that they were appropriately dressed and appeared well cared for.
People’s needs were carefully assessed. Staff prepared appropriate and detailed care plans with the involvement of people and their representatives. Their healthcare needs were closely monitored and attended to. Staff were caring and knowledgeable regarding the individual care needs of people. The home had arrangements for encouraging people to express their views regarding areas such as activities and meals provided. People’s preferences were recorded and arrangements were in place to ensure that these were responded to. People could participate in activities they liked and go on outings.
There were suitable arrangements for the provision of food to ensure that people’s dietary needs were met. People had received their medication. There were suitable arrangements for the recording, storage, administration and disposal of medicines in the home.
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had been carefully recruited and provided with training to enable them to care effectively for people. Staff had the necessary support and supervision to enable them to care for people. They had received training and knew how to recognise and report any concerns or allegations of abuse.
The home had comprehensive arrangements for quality assurance. Regular audits and checks had been carried out by the registered manager and the operations manager. These reflected the CQC standards expected of care services.
We found the premises were clean and tidy. The home had an infection control policy and measures were in place for infection control. There was a record of essential inspections and maintenance carried out. Risk assessments had been carried out and these contained guidance to staff on protecting people.
The focus of the inspection was to gather evidence to answer the five key questions : is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?
Is the service safe?
Risk assessments completed for individuals were comprehensive. Staff had received safeguarding training and demonstrated a good knowledge of how to report any safeguarding concerns. However, the service had not considered the issue of bed rails and wheelchair lap belts restricting people's liberty under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Is the service effective?
The service was effective because people who used the service told us they felt their support was of high quality and helped them to lead active lives.
The service ensured that staff received adequate support which in turn led to staff who were effective in providing high standards of support at all times.
Is the service caring?
The service was caring because it treated people with respect, which we saw in the interactions between people and staff.
The service was also caring because it adopted a fully person-centred approach towards planning for and meeting people's individual needs.
Is the service responsive?
The service was responsive because it took action where this was seen to be necessary, for example by responding to issues identified as necessary by an infection control audit and by acting upon feedback from a relative in the annual satisfaction survey.
We noted that as people's needs changed over time, staff were able to respond to their needs.
Is the service well-led?
There was a comprehensive quality assurance framework in place to ensure quality standards were maintained and this was effectively managed and monitored by the registered manager and senior managers. For example, risks were assessed and managed effectively, there was a comprehensive complaints system in place and people were regularly asked for their views in the form of questionnaires.