Archived: Estuary Housing Association Limited - 1 Bradd Close

The care home accommodates eight people in two co-joined bungalows. The care service was 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.

At our last inspection, the service was rated Good overall, with well-led being judged as Requires Improvement. This was because the registered manager was not being provided with support and quality assurance processes were not being implemented in line with the provider’s policies. At this inspection, while the registered manager was on extended leave, we found that improvements had been made. Actions were in place to support the acting manager and to carry out the provider’s quality monitoring procedures. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

A registered manager was 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The deputy manager was acting as manager in leading the service.

Procedures were in place to protect people from harm and staff knew how to use them to keep people safe. Risk management plans were in place to support people and their safety. There were also processes in place to manage any risks in relation to the running of the service. Medicines were safely managed to ensure people received their prescribed medicines to meet their needs.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. Staff felt well trained and used their training effectively. People received the support they needed to eat and drink well and their health needs were well catered for with appropriate referrals made to external health professionals when needed. People were helped 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 caring and respected people’s privacy, dignity and independence. People’s needs were assessed and they were supported in a person centred way. Care plans were detailed and people and those who mattered to them were included in developing these. Relatives felt welcome in the service. They also felt able to be express any concerns, that that they would be listened to and actions would be taken.

There was stable leadership in the service; people living and working in the service had the opportunity to say how they felt about the home and the service it provided. People knew the management team and staff told they found them to be approachable and available in the home.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The support plans were clear and informative and contained the details of the support needs of each person, together with any risks present and steps taken to reduce such risks. Where specific medical support was required, this was recorded clearly in the support plan and monitored to ensure it was effective.

As there were communication difficulties with the people living there we spoke with several of their relatives. They all told us that they were very happy with the care and treatment that their loved one received and were very complimentary about the staff who worked there. One person said, " I cannot speak highly enough of the care my relative gets. They are well looked after, clean and happy. The staff keep in touch with me if there is ever an issue. I have never had cause to make a complaint."

When we looked at the equipment available to support people using the service we found that it was fit for purpose, of sufficient quality and maintained regularly. Staff had received appropriate training in its use and it was comfortable for people using the service and promoted their independence.

The provider had an effective system to monitor the quality of the service they provided through audits, patient and relative surveys and staff feedback.

We looked at support and health plans on our visit and found that they were person centred, reflected the needs of the individual and ensured their welfare and safety.

We looked at safeguarding policies and found that correct procedures were being followed and that all staff had received appropriate training. When we spoke with staff we found that there was a culture of openness in relation to reporting abuse and relatives we spoke to said that they felt that it was a safe environment.

When we looked at staffing levels we found that they met the health care needs of people using the service. We did find that due to the health care demands of the individuals that there was often insufficient time to provide enough activities to support independence and community involvement.

The records showed that the provider undertook regular quality reviews of services and the results of these highlighted areas for improvement which were acted upon, protecting people from the risk of unsafe treatment.