You are here

Choices Housing Association Limited - 1 William Street Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 15 November 2018

This inspection took place on 17 October 2018 and was unannounced.

At the last inspection the service was rated as requires improvement. We found the provider was not meeting all the requirements of the law by ensuring people were safeguarded from potential abuse and notifying us of changes at the service which are required by law. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve to at least good. During this inspection we found that the provider had done what they said they would do and were no longer in breach of regulations.

Choices Housing Association Limited – 1 William Street is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

1 William Street accommodates up to six people, who may have learning disabilities in one adapted building. At the time of this inspection there were five people using the service.

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.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. 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 were protected from avoidable abuse and harm by trained staff. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs and staff had their suitability to work in a care setting checked before they began working with people. Medicines were managed safely, so that people received their medicines as prescribed. Risks were assessed, identified and managed appropriately, with guidance for staff on how to mitigate risks. Premises and equipment were kept clean and tidy. The registered manager had systems in place to learn when things went wrong.

People’s needs and choices were effectively assessed. People were supported by trained staff and received effective care in line with their support needs. Staff received regular supervision and had access to continuous training. People had a choice of food which they enjoyed and they received support to meet their nutrition and hydration needs. The environment was designed and adapted to support people effectively. Healthcare professionals were consulted as needed and people had access to a wide range of healthcare services. 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.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate with people. People were supported to express their views and encouraged to make their own choices, as staff met their individual communication needs. People were treated with dignity and respect by staff who knew them well.

Staff understood people and their needs and preferences were assessed and regularly reviewed. People were supported to participate in activities that they preferred. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. People's diverse needs were considered as part of the assessment and care planning process. People felt confident to raise any concerns or complaints and there was an accessible complaints policy and procedure in place. People were supported to consider their wishes about their end of life care.

A registered manager was in post and was freely available

Inspection areas



Updated 15 November 2018

The service was safe.

Improvements had been made to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm.

People felt safe and relatives were confident people were safe.

There were enough, safely recruited and suitably skilled staff to meet people�s needs.

People�s medicines were safely managed so they received them as prescribed and people were protected from the spread of infection.

People�s risks were assessed and managed to help keep them safe and the service learned lessons and made improvements when anything went wrong.



Updated 15 November 2018

The service was effective.

People�s needs and choices were holistically assessed and their needs were met by well-trained and well-supported staff.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a healthy diet and had access to healthcare professionals when required.

Staff worked together and with other professionals to provide effective care for people.

People were supported to make decisions in line with law and guidance and the design and adaptation of the home met their needs.



Updated 15 November 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind and compassionate staff who knew them well and anticipated their needs.

People were supported to make their own choices and communicate effectively.

People's privacy and dignity was respected and their independence was promoted.



Updated 15 November 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Staff knew people well.

People and relatives were involved in the planning and reviewing of the care required. People had access to activities they enjoyed.

There was a suitable complaints policy and procedure in place and people felt confident to raise concerns when required.

People had been supported to consider their end of life wishes, when this was appropriate.



Updated 15 November 2018

The service was well-led.

We were notified of important events which occurred at the service, as required by law.

People, relatives and staff felt the registered manager was approachable and supportive.

There were systems in place which were operated effectively to monitor the quality and safety of the service and improvements were made when required.

People, relatives and staff were engaged and involved in the service and given opportunities to provide feedback which was acted upon.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies.