Background to this inspection
Updated
23 February 2019
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 inspection took place on 16 January 2019 was unannounced.
The inspection was carried out by an inspector.
Before the inspection we reviewed information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). 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 also reviewed other information we held about the service as part of our inspection. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send CQC within required timescales. We also contacted commissioners from the Local Authorities who contracted people’s care to obtain feedback about the service.
As part of the inspection we spoke with four people who lived at the service, two support workers including one senior support worker and the registered manager. We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and checked to see how the service was managed. We looked at care plans for three people, the recruitment records for three staff, staffing rosters, staff meeting minutes, meeting minutes for people who used the service and the quality assurance audits that were completed. During the inspection we carried out general observations.
Updated
23 February 2019
3 Sydenham Terrace is a care home that provides accommodation and personal care for a maximum of six people who live with a learning disability or a related condition. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Six people were accommodated at the service at the time of inspection.
The building accommodated six people and conformed with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. The model of care proposed from 2015 and 2016 guidance that people with learning disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorder which proposed smaller community based housing. 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 in August 2016 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 said they felt safe and they could speak to staff as they were approachable. People and staff told us they thought there were enough staff on duty to provide safe care to people.
Staff knew about safeguarding procedures. Staff were subject to robust recruitment checks. Arrangements for managing people’s medicines that we inspected were safe.
Parts of the building were showing signs of wear and tear. An area of the combined lounge and dining room was being used as an office, which reduced the living area for people who used the service and also gave them no privacy from staff. We received an action plan straight after the inspection with timescales to show how the refurbishment would be addressed.
Staff spoke with people respectfully and most systems were in place to respect people's privacy. However, personal information about people was displayed on a noticeboard in the kitchen. This was addressed immediately during the inspection and people’s personal information was removed.
Risk assessments were in place and they accurately identified current risks to the person as well as ways for staff to minimise or appropriately manage those risks. Staff knew the needs of the people they supported to provide individual care and records reflected the care provided.
People were involved in decisions about their care. 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.
Records reflected the care provided by staff. Care was provided with kindness and patience. Communication was effective to ensure people, staff and relatives were kept up-to-date about any changes in people's care and support needs and the running of the service.
People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Staff followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the care they needed. People received a varied and balanced diet to meet their nutritional needs. There were opportunities for people to follow their interests and hobbies.
Staff were well-supported due to regular supervision, annual appraisals and an induction programme, which developed their understanding of people and their routines.
People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was consultation with staff and people and their views were used to improve the service. People said they knew how to complain. The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.