We carried out a review of the data available to us about Walkers 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 Walkers Close, you can give feedback on this service.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People using the service felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and they felt confident in how to report these types of concerns. People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these with people’s rights to take risks and remain independent.
There were sufficient staff with the correct skill mix on duty to support people with their required needs. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. Staff were not offered employment until satisfactory checks had been completed.
Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service. Effective infection control measures were in place to protect people.
People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people. Staff gained consent before supporting people. 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 received an induction process and on-going training. They had attended a variety of training to ensure that they were able to provide care based on current best practice when supporting people. They were also supported with regular supervisions and observed practice.
People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support if and when required to enable people to access a balanced diet.
People were supported to access a variety of health professionals when required, including opticians and doctors to make sure that people received additional healthcare to meet their needs.
Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.
People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times. Care plans were written in a person-centred way and were responsive to people’s needs. People were supported to follow their interests and join in activities.
People knew how to complain. There was a complaints procedure in place and accessible to all. Complaints had been responded to appropriately.
Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
Walkers Close provides personal care and support to six people with a learning disability within a supported living scheme. The scheme consists of four flats and an office base in a single building within a housing estate in Shefford, Bedfordshire.
The service has a registered manager. 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 safe and the provider had effective systems in place to protect them from harm. Medicines were administered safely and people were supported to access other healthcare professionals to maintain their health and well-being. They were supported effectively and encouraged to be as independent as possible. They were assisted to maintain their interests and hobbies. They were aware of the provider’s complaints system and information about this and other aspects of the service was available in an easy read format. People were encouraged to contribute to the development of the service and to develop links with the local community.
Staff were well trained. They understood and complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). They were supported by way of regular supervision and appraisal. They were caring and promoted people’s privacy and dignity. Staff were encouraged to contribute to the development of the service and understood the provider’s visions and values.
There were effective complaints and quality assurance systems in place.
We looked at three care plans and found these were person centred and detailed the support and care people required. The plans were reviewed by a multi-disciplinary team and the person to ensure that everyone was aware of the support and care each person required. Risk assessments were in place and there was evidence that people's capacity to make informed choices was always consider.
The support staff assisted two of the people with the management and administration of their medication on a daily basis. There were procedures in place for the management of medication for all of the people living at the scheme should medication, such as antibiotics, be required. Staff had received medication training and there was a robust process in place to ensure that medication was administered safely.
The service provided 24 hour cover at the scheme. The staff team had carried a number of vacancies over the last two years. These vacancies were covered by the use of regular agency staff. Staff told us recruitment to these vacancies had commenced.
There were robust quality assurance systems in place which monitored the service delivery and sought the views of people using the service.
People were complimentary of the support they received from staff. One person told us, 'The staff are alright. I like all of them. They are good to me.' Another said the staff were, 'Reasonable, friendly, very helpful. They understand me.' They all said that staff were aware of, and met, their needs. During our visit we saw positive interactions between the staff and the people receiving support.
People said that staff treated them with respect and supported them to make their own decisions about their day to day lives, for example, how they spent their time and the food and clothes they bought.
People told us they were encouraged to express their views and be involved in making decision about their care.