Progress House

Updated 7 June 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was a comprehensive inspection. This inspection took place on 12 April 2018 and was unannounced. The membership of the inspection team was one adult social care inspector. At the time of our inspection there were 5 people using the service, although one person was in hospital at the time of our visit.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with four people who used the service, and two health care professionals. We spent time in communal areas observing interactions between staff and people they supported. We also spoke with the registered manager, and three support workers.

We looked at documentation relating to people who used the service, staff and the management of the service. This included two people’s care and support records, including the assessments and plans of their care. We saw the systems used to manage people’s medication, including the storage and records kept. We also looked at the quality assurance systems to check if they were robust.

Updated 7 June 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 12 April 2018 and was unannounced.

Progress House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service can accommodate up to five people in one house.

The care service has been 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 the last comprehensive inspection in April 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘progress House’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 registered manager was registered at three locations; a general manager was also in post to manage this location.

People continued to feel safe. People we spoke with all said they felt safe. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to safeguard people from the risk of harm and risks to people were assessed and monitored regularly.

Staffing levels were maintained to ensure that people's care and support needs continued to be met safely and there were safe recruitment processes in place.

People continued to receive their medicines in a safe manner and received good healthcare support. People received a nutritious and balanced diet and their dietary needs and choices were met.

The service was well maintained and clean. Infection control was adhered to by staff.

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.

There were good systems in place to monitor incidents and accidents. 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.

There was a strong person centred and caring culture in the home. (Person centred means that care is tailored to meet the needs and aspirations of each person, as an individual.) The vision of the service was shared by the management team and staff.

We observed people had good relationships with the staff, people we spoke with told us the staff were caring and kind. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and promoted their independence. People were also supported in decisions regarding their end of life wishes.

There was a varied and appropriate activity programme and people had regular access to the community.

The service had an open and inclusive culture which encouraged communication and learning. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service and it was used to drive improvement.

There were policies in place that ensured people would be listened to and treated fairly if they complained about the service.

We saw that the registered provider and manager continued to effectively monitor and audit the quality and safety of the service and that people who used the service and their relatives were involved in the development of the home and were able to contribute ideas.

Further information is in the detailed findings below