The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: 804 Walsall Road

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Great Barr, Birmingham, West Midlands, B42 1EU (0121) 358 0412

Provided and run by:
Voyage 1 Limited

All Inspections

13 June 2017

During a routine inspection

804 Walsall Road is a care home without nursing for up to three people, all of whom have learning disabilities and some of whom have additional physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting three people.

At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People told us that the home was safe. Staff demonstrated that they were aware of the action to take should they suspect that someone was being abused. Risks to people were reassessed when their conditions changed. There were enough staff to meet people’s care and support needs promptly. People received their medicines safely and when they needed them.

People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. People were supported to have the maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

Menus reflected people’s preferences and nutritional needs. When necessary people were helped to eat by staff. People had ‘Hospital passports’ which were care files that contained a summary of their current conditions, care needs and medication. People in the home were supported to make use of the services of a variety of mental and physical health professionals.

People told us that the registered manager and staff were caring. People were supported by regular staff who spoke fondly about the people they supported. People had key workers who understood people’s preferred communication styles and assisted them when necessary to express their views. Staff respected people’s privacy and care plans promoted people’s independence.

Staff supported people to engage in activities they enjoyed. People’s care and support was planned in partnership with them so the plan reflected their views and wishes. People told us that the registered manager and staff were approachable and would take action if they were not happy or had a complaint.

Relatives told us that the home was well run. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities to the commission and they were knowledgeable of the type of events they were required to notify us of. Staff told us that the registered manager was supportive and led the staff team well. The registered manager and provider made checks that the standard of care was maintained and in some instances these checks had led to further improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

16 March 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 16 March 2015 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in October 2013 the provider was compliant with all the regulations we looked at.

Voyage 1 804 Walsall Road is a residential home which provides care to people who have learning disabilities. The service is registered with the Commission to provide personal care for up to three people. There was a registered manager at this location. 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.

We observed staff continually ask people how they wanted their care to be delivered and supported them in line with their requests. People were relaxed with staff and confident to approach them for support. Staff said they enjoyed supporting people and spoke affectionately about the people who used the service. People were supported to pursue the interests they said they liked such as visiting relatives and restaurants. People were also supported to be as independent as they wished such as helping to prepare their meals and wash their laundry.

People were supported to maintain relationships which were important to them. Relatives regularly visited people in the home and people were supported to visit relatives in the community. People expressed their views about the service at regular meetings and were involved in discussing the care they received. Relatives told us they were involved in the planning and reviewing of their relative’s care and were often approached by the provider to comment on the service when they visited or spoke with staff on the telephone.

The provider had completed/undertaken assessments to identify if people were at risk of harm and if so had included guidance about how this could be reduced. People received their medication as prescribed and the provider had taken action in response to medication errors to reduce the risk of them from happening again. Staff monitored people’s nutritional intake and weight ensuring that people were supported to eat and drink enough to keep them well. We saw that when necessary the provider had involved other healthcare professionals such as dieticians in people’s care.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. All the relatives and staff we spoke with told us that they felt there were enough staff to meet people’s care needs. The provider had taken action to increase their staffing levels when people’s needs changed. Staff were able to demonstrate they had the skills and knowledge to communicate effectively with people who were unable to express themselves verbally or were visually impaired. They expressed a good knowledge of what people liked to do and their individual preferences. Staff were supported with their personal development and to deliver what was required of their roles.

People were kept safe and staff knew how to recognise when people might be at risk of harm and the provider’s process for reporting any concerns. Records showed that the provider had worked with other agencies when they had received information of concern in order to keep people safe. This protected people from the risk of abuse.

The provider understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) They had conducted assessments when people were thought to lack capacity or held meetings to ensure decisions were made in the best interests of the people who used the service. The provider had ensured that staff were clear about the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and that people were supported with the least restrictions to their liberty

Relatives told us that the provider regularly sought their views when assessing the quality of the service and that the provider acted on their comments. Staff told us that the registered manager was approachable and responded to their concerns promptly. There were processes in place to enable staff to express their views and records showed that the provider had taken action in response to issues raised at regular meetings. The provider had ensured that staff were aware of the aims and vision of the service.

The provider had a system to assess the quality of the service and identify how it could be improved. The provider had developed an action plan to implement improvements at the service.

27 September 2013

During a routine inspection

When we visited we found that the home provided care for three people. The people using the services had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. We used a variety of methods to help us understand the quality of the care people received. We spoke to three care staff and the manager. We looked at the care records and policies and watched how people received care. We also spoke to the relative of a person who used the service and a manager from the provider's human resources department.

The people who used the service and their relatives were involved in planning their care. They were supported to make choices about the care they received. A person told us, 'I am always involved in [person's name]. I was there last week to see their wheelchair assessment'.

People received sufficient quantities of food and drink to meet their needs and were supported to make choices about what they ate and drank.

The provider had robust recruitment procedures in place to ensure that people employed at the service were of good character and had the necessary skills, qualifications and knowledge to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

There were good arrangements for making sure that standards were monitored and improved, where necessary. These included audits of services and regular staff meetings. A relative of a person who used the service told us, 'I raised a concern earlier in the year and it was sorted there and then'.

16 January 2013

During a routine inspection

There were two people living at the home on the day of our inspection but they were not able to tell us their experiences because of their complex needs. We spent time observing how staff supported people, looked at care records, talked with four staff and three relatives to help us understand the experiences of the people using the service.

We saw that staff at the home treated people with warmth and kindness. A relative told us, 'They are very good with the people here, they really care and love them'.

The people who use the service were involved in influencing the care and welfare they received. We saw records of meetings which showed how the views of people who lived at the home were gathered and used to improve the service.

Care was planned and designed to meet the individual health and welfare needs of the people who used the service. We saw people were supported to have regular health checks to ensure their wellbeing.

Systems were in place to ensure that people were safeguarded from harm. A visitor told us they felt their relative was safe there.

There were enough staff to meet the care and welfare needs of the people who use the service. Staff received the training they needed to support the people living there.

The provider protected people against the risk of unsafe care and treatment by regularly assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided and action had been taken to improve the service in response to a previous inspection.

12 September 2012

During a routine inspection

At the time of our visit two people were living at this home. One person was out at a day centre and the other person had communication needs as part of their learning disability. They were unable to talk with us about their experience of living at the home. An expert by experience spent some time talking to staff and observing how the person was being supported and cared for. They found out that people all have their own plan of care, and as far as possible people are involved in developing this, and caring for themselves. They were told how staff have learnt what different gestures and sounds people make mean, and how staff respond to these to support the person. The expert by experience saw staff help the person to be as independent as possible.

Staff told the expert by experience that people can do different activities that they are interested in. These can be things out in the local area or in the home.

The expert saw the shared areas of the home. They said these were comfortable and felt homely.