You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 September 2017

The inspection took place on 9 and 16 August 2017 and was unannounced. When we last inspected the service on 31 March 2016 we found breaches with regulations 11, 12 17 & 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because the provider had failed to manage people’s medicines safely and people were placed at risk due to staff not having a full understanding or knowledge with regard to how to obtain consent from people. We also found there was a lack of effective leadership and governance and deficiencies in the monitoring and auditing of the service placed people at risk of not receiving proper care and treatment. The staffing levels on the day of the inspection were also found to be inadequate to ensure people’s health and safety were maintained.

Following the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to tell us how they would make the required improvements to meet the legal requirements. At this inspection we found that the provider had made the necessary improvements and therefore improved the quality of the service provided at Milehouse Lane.

Milehouse Lane provides accommodation and personal care for up to seven people who have a learning disability and the home was fully occupied on the day we inspected.

Accommodation is provided over two floors. All bedrooms are for single occupancy and there are separate toilets and bathroom/shower facilities. There is a kitchen, communal areas, including a dining room, a lounge and a conservatory for people and their visitors to use.

There was a new manager in post who was in the process of applying to become the registered manager of the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 majority of people who lived at the home were unable to communicate verbally but we observed staff supporting people with a range of communication aids, which included signing and interpreting people’s body language with regards to meeting their needs and wishes. People welcomed us into their home and told us they felt safe and happy living at Milehouse Lane.

We found that people were supported to take their medicines by trained staff. We saw that staff followed safe practices and medicines were accurately documented and stock levels checked were correct.

People felt safe living at Milehouse lane. Staff understood how to keep people safe and risks to people's safety and well-being were identified and managed. The home was calm and people's needs were met in a timely manner by sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff. The provider operated a thorough recruitment processes which helped to ensure that staff employed to provide care and support for people were fit to do so.

We found that staff received regular one to one supervision and felt supported and valued. People received the support they needed to eat and drink sufficient quantities and their health needs were catered for with appropriate referrals made to external health professionals when needed.

Relatives complimented the staff team for being kind and caring. Staffs were knowledgeable about individuals' care and support needs and preferences and people had been involved in the planning of their care where they were able. Visitors to the home were encouraged at any time of the day.

The manager had arrangements in place to receive feedback from people who used the service, their relatives, external stakeholders and staff members about the services provided. There was an effective system in place for people to raise complaints about the service they received.

There was an open and respectful culture in the home and relatives and staff were comfortable to speak with the manager if they had a conce

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 September 2017

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to recognise and report allegations of abuse.

Staff did not start work until satisfactory employment checks had been completed.

People�s medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 September 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in respect of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs).

People�s health and nutritional needs were effectively met.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 September 2017

The service was caring.

People said staff were caring, kind and compassionate.

Staff recognised people�s right to privacy, respected confidential information and promoted people�s dignity.

There was a homely and welcoming atmosphere and people could choose where they spent their time.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 September 2017

The service was responsive.

People�s care plans were detailed, personalised and contained information to enable staff to meet their identified care needs.

A choice variety of activities were available within the home provided by staff, and also people were supported to attend local community groups.

People were supported to make meaningful decisions about how they lived their lives.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 September 2017

The service was well led.

There were opportunities for people and staff to express their views about the service via meetings, discussions with the manager and through surveys.

A number of systems were in place to monitor and review the quality of the service provided to people to ensure they received a good standard of care.