• Care Home
  • Care home

Choices Housing Association Limited - 20 Dairy Close

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

20 Dairy Close, Leek, Staffordshire, ST13 6LT (01538) 386762

Provided and run by:
Choices Housing Association Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Choices Housing Association Limited - 20 Dairy Close 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 Choices Housing Association Limited - 20 Dairy Close, you can give feedback on this service.

26 March 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

20 Dairy Close is a care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to four people with a learning disability, who may also be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection, four people were using the service.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The registered manager had introduced new visiting protocols, in line with guidance introduced on 08 March 2021.These had been clearly communicated to people's family and friends and were being kept under review as individual visits went ahead, to maintain people's safety.

¿ Alternatively, outdoor visits were continued using a free-standing Perspex screen, which enabled visits without the need to enter the home. A booking system was in place and enhanced cleaning was undertaken following any visits, which minimised any potential spread of infection.

¿ The registered manager had produced a pictorial guide to COVID-19 testing and vaccination to support and reassure people about the processes involved.

¿ Staggered mealtimes had been introduced to reduce mixing and promote social distancing. Staff told us people had taken well to this change and had resulted in other positive benefits such as improved concentration, which helped reduce choking risks. Staff now worked longer shifts to reduce the need for staff changeovers and potential for spread of infection.

¿ Staff felt well supported by the registered manager and used a social media group to keep in regular contact with each other. They could also access confidential counselling offered by the provider to support their wellbeing.

¿ The registered manager was in daily contact with the provider to ensure Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) stock levels were safely maintained at all times. Staffing levels were also closely monitored and a 'bubble' system had been developed to provide support to services in the event of an outbreak.

¿ The service had a winter plan which reflected on learning from the provider's other services, to ensure infection outbreaks were effectively prevented or managed.

¿The environment was clean. Staff completed regular touch point cleaning and deep cleans to ensure the risk of cross transmission was reduced.

14 February 2020

During a routine inspection

About the service

20 Dairy Close is a residential care home providing personal care to four people at the time of the inspection. The service supports people who have a learning disability and/or a mental health condition such as dementia in one adapted building.

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.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were supported by safely recruited staff, who had the skills and knowledge to provide effective support. There were enough staff available to meet people’s emotional and physical needs. People’s medicines were safely managed, and staff followed infection control procedures.

Effective care planning and risk management was in place which helped staff provide support that met people’s needs and in line with their preferences. 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.

People were supported to access healthcare professionals and staff followed advice to ensure people’s health was maintained. There were systems in place to ensure people received consistent care and support.

People were supported by caring staff who promoted choices in a way that people understood, this meant people had control and choice over their lives. Staff provided dignified care and respected people’s privacy. People’s independence was promoted by staff.

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.

People and relatives were involved in the planning and review of the support provided. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and respected diversity. People’s communication needs were met, and information was provided in a way that promoted people’s understanding. There was a complaints system in place which people understood. People had been involved in end of life planning which ensured staff understood how they wanted to be support at this time of their lives.

Systems were in place to monitor the service, which ensured people’s risks were mitigated and lessons were learnt when things went wrong. People, relatives and staff felt able to approach the registered manager who acted on suggestions to make improvements to the delivery of care. Staff and the registered manager were committed to providing a good standard of care.

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 20 October 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.

4 September 2017

During a routine inspection

20 Dairy Close provides support for up to four people who have a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were four people living at the service. At the last inspection, in September 2015, the service was rated Good in all domains. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

People continued to receive safe care and we found there were enough staff to provide support to people that met their needs. We found that people were consistently protected from the risk of harm and received their medicines safely. The provider had safe recruitment procedures in place to ensure that staff were of a good character and suitable to support people who used the service.

People continued to be supported to make decisions about their care and staff sought people’s consent before they carried out support. 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.

People’s nutritional needs were met by staff. People were able to choose what they wanted to eat and drink. People had access to health care services and advice sought was followed by staff to ensure people’s health and wellbeing was maintained. Staff received training to enable them to support people effectively.

People were treated with dignity and staff were caring and kind. People’s privacy was respected and upheld, people were able to have time to themselves in their private rooms. Staff encouraged people’s independence and respected people’s choices. Staff understood people’s individual communication needs and relationships with relatives were maintained.

People were supported with interests and hobbies that were important to them. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Staff knew people well, which meant people were supported in line with their preferences. People understood how to complain if they needed to because complaints procedures were in a format that people understood.

Effective systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service people received. People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service. The registered manager was approachable and supportive to both people and staff.

28 September 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected 20 Dairy Close on 28 September 2015. The inspection was unannounced.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to four people. People who used the service had a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were four people who used the service.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was unavailable at the time of our inspection, but we were able to speak with the deputy manager.

People were kept safe because staff understood how to recognise possible signs of abuse and the actions they needed to take if people were at risk of harm. People’s risks were assessed in a way that kept them safe whilst promoting their independence.

People who used the service received their medicines safely. Systems were in place that ensured people were protected from risks associated with medicines management.

We found that there were enough suitably qualified staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. The registered manager made changes to staffing levels when people’s needs changed.

Staff were trained to carry out their role and the provider had safe recruitment procedures that ensured people were supported by suitable staff.

Staff had a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA and the DoLS set out the requirements that ensure where appropriate decisions are made in people’s best interests where they are unable to do this for themselves. People’s capacity had been assessed and staff knew how to support people in a way that was in their best interests. We found that where people were able they consented to their care and treatment.

People were supported with their individual nutritional needs and were able to access other health services with support from staff.

People told us and we saw staff were kind and compassionate. Staff treated people with respect, gave choices and listened to what people wanted.

People’s preferences in care were recorded throughout the care plans and we saw that people were supported to be involved in hobbies and interests that were important to them.

The provider had a complaints procedure that was available to people in a format that they understood.

Staff told us that the registered manager was approachable and led the team well. Staff had clear values and were enthusiastic about their role and what their support meant for people.

People, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback on the service provided. The registered manager had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.

17 September 2013

During a routine inspection

During the inspection we spoke with two people who used the service and their representatives, staff who provided support and the registered manager. We did this understand the experiences of people who lived at the home.

We found that the provider had systems in place to gain consent for care and treatment from people who used the service. We observed staff supporting people with decisions in a way that people understood. Staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities with regards to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People we spoke with told us that they were happy with the care they received from staff. One person told us. 'It's great. I can choose what I want to do'. We observed that staff treated people in a caring and respectful manner and were responsive to people's needs and wishes.

The provider had a system in place to ensure that medicines were administered and recorded safely and people who used the service were protected from the risk of harm associated with the management of medicines.

Staff we spoke with told us that they carried out an induction before they provided support to people who used the service. Staff told us they received regular appraisals and training to carry out their role and felt supported by the registered manager.

The provider had an effective complaints system in place which was accessible to people who used the service. People we spoke with told us they knew how to complain if they needed to.

7 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We met with people who lived at the home and all the staff on duty. We spoke with three people living at the home and two members of staff. We also spoke with three relatives. We saw that people who used the service were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care and support needs. Relatives we spoke with told us, "I have always been involved, if I can attend reviews they keep me informed" and "I always attend the six monthly meetings and I am asked my views".

The records viewed were centred around the individual and we observed staff treating people who used the service with dignity and respect. Staff we spoke with told us how they made sure that people were given choices and how they were supported to maintain their independence.

We spoke with staff who had a good understanding of the different types of abuse and the procedures to follow if they felt that someone was at risk of harm. One person who used the service told us, "Staff treat me good".

The provider had undertaken the necessary checks when recruiting staff to ensure that they were suitable to provide support to people who used the service. Staff we spoke with told us that they had received an induction and training at the start of their employment.

The provider had effective systems in place to gain the views of people who used the service and acted upon any suggestions or concerns that had been raised.

3 January 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this inspection visit because we had not visited for sometime and we did not have any recent information about the service. We needed to assess whether the service was meeting the essential standards of quality and safety.

Four people live in this bungalow that provides good facilities. We were told that all areas had been recently upgraded and redecorated. The home looked very bright, pleasant and comfortable.

Two people using the service showed us their bedrooms, clearly having some pride in ownership. All bedrooms are for single use and were exceptionally well personalised. People's names were on bedroom doors together with many photographs and pictures and most with a 'please knock and wait' notice.

Care plans in pictorial form were in people's bedrooms, giving them possession and also invovement in the plans as they were reviewed and changed. Staff were heard to ask if they could take them to update them during our visit.

Each person was keen to tell us about life at Dairy Close, what their interests were and how they spent their day.

We observed good sensitive, respectful and positive exchanges between staff and people using the service. People were asked before any actions were taken by staff, for example people were asked what they wanted for breakfast, whether they wanted a bath and what activity they would like for the day.

We spoke with a former carer of a person who does not have family visits. This carer had continued regular visits during the eight years the person had been at Dairy Close and told us that the person was 'happier and healthier than in their previous placement'. They also said that staff were very supportive and interested in the person and had no complaints or concerns about how they were cared for.