Archived: Disabilities Trust - 49 Stolford Rise

At the last inspection on 19 November 2015 the service was rated Good.

At this inspection on 07 November 2017 we found the service remained Good.

There was a registered manager 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.

People continued to feel safe. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to safeguard people from the risk of harm and risks to people were assessed and monitored regularly. The premises were appropriately maintained to support people to stay safe. Staff understood how to prevent and manage behaviours that the service may find challenging.

Staffing levels ensured that people's care and support needs were safely met and safe recruitment processes were in place. 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. Systems were in place to ensure the premises was kept clean and hygienic so that people were protected by the prevention and control of infection. There were arrangements in place for the service to make sure that action was taken and lessons learned when things went wrong, to improve safety across the service

People’s needs and choices were assessed and their care provided in line with up to date guidance and best practice. They received care from staff that had received training and support to carry out their roles. People were encouraged to prepare their own meals and make health choices to maintain their health and well-being. Staff supported people to book and attend appointments with healthcare professionals, and supported them to maintain a healthy lifestyle. The service worked with other organisations to ensure that people received coordinated and person-centred care and support.

People’s diverse needs were met by the adaptation, design and decoration of premises and they were involved in decisions about the environment. Staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and they gained people's consent before providing personal care.

Staff were caring and compassionate and meaningful relationships had developed between people and staff. People were treated with dignity and respect and staff ensured their privacy was maintained. People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided staff had a good understanding of people's needs and preferences.

People were listened to, their views were acknowledged and acted upon and care and support was delivered in the way that people chose and preferred. Care plans were person centred and reflected how people’s needs were to be met. Records showed that people and their relatives were involved in the assessment process and the on-going reviews of their care. They were supported to take part in activities which they wanted to do, within the service and the local community. There was a complaints procedure in place to enable people to raise complaints about the service.

The service had an open culture which encouraged communication and learning. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service and it was used to drive continuous improvement. Staff were motivated to perform their roles and worked to empower people to be as independent as possible. The provider had quality assurance systems to review the quality of the service to help drive improvement.

Two people using the service were able to communicate with us verbally and told us that they were happy with the care provided by all the staff. One person said 'I get on very well with all staff and many have been here a long time and I have got know them well'. Another person told us 'I go shopping with staff to buy my clothes and we also do food shopping and buy healthy food. The two people also told us they knew how to make a complaint to the staff if they were not happy about the quality of care provided. One person told us that they had raised a complaint and felt the management had listened and helped to resolve the problem.

Throughout our visit we observed people using the service had a good relationship with the staff. We saw all staff were respectful of people's dignity and worked at their pace. The people also told us that staff spoke to them in a dignified and kind manner.

We found the provider had systems in place to meet people's health and welfare needs. We also found that the staff had received the relevant training and were experienced to meet people's needs. We saw that the provider had a complaints system in place to ensure that any complaints raised were handled appropriately.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs. However the delivery of care was not always based on an up to date care plan or risk assessment for the person using the service. People using the service told us the care and support provided at the home was good and that they got on well with staff who were helpful and listened to them.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs at all times. Staff had received a wide range of training during the last year and had regular supervision.

There was an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. A programme of regular audits is undertaken with action taken to remedy any areas for improvement.