You are here

Speciality Care (Rest Homes) Limited - 113 Sussex Road Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 9 December 2016

The inspection took place on 8 and 10 November 2016 and was announced.

113 Sussex Road is part of the student accommodation for people with a learning disability who attend Arden College. During the evenings and weekends educational and leisure activities are offered to the students to extend their learning and to promote independence. The home can accommodate three young people aged 16-25 and on the day of our visit there was one person living there.

The service was last inspected in January 2014 and at that time was found to be meeting standards. 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.

The staff we spoke with described how they would recognise abuse and the action they would take to ensure actual or potential harm was reported. Training records confirmed staff had undertaken safeguarding training and this was on-going.

We reviewed the way medication was managed. We saw there were systems in place to monitor medication so that people received their medicines safely.

We looked at how staff were recruited and the processes to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. We found recruitment to be well managed and thorough.

We found there were enough staff on duty each day to keep the person safe and to be able to access the community.

Staff received a regular programme of training and support, through regular supervision and appraisals. Staff were very complimentary about their manager ( house manager) who they said was very supportive.

Care was organised so any risks were assessed and plans put in place to maximise people's independence whilst help ensure people's safety.

Arrangements were in place for checking the environment to ensure it was safe. We found the environment safe and well maintained.

The service adhered to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). We saw that an assessment of the person's mental capacity was completed.

Care records showed that the person’s health care needs were addressed and contact with external health care professionals was made when needed. We saw that the house manager and staff liaised well with community services to support the person who lived in the home.

Dietary needs were managed with reference to individual preferences. Staff provided support and supervision to enable the person to choose and cook their own snacks and meals.

The person living in the home took part in a range of activities of their choice.

Care and support plans were formulated and were current to meet the person's needs. We saw that the person living in the home was involved in their care planning and decision making on a day to day basis. The person living in the home had made progress with staff in many areas towards independent living.

Staff felt they had the skills and knowledge needed to support the person in the way they required. The person living in the home was satisfied with the support they received from staff. They were pleased with the progress they had made since their admission.

There was a complaints procedure was in place. A record was made of any complaints and these had been responded to within the timescales given in the policy.

Staff were aware of the whistle blowing policy and said they would not hesitate to use it.

The home manager was able to evidence a series of quality assurance processes and audits carried out internally and externally by staff and from external agencies. These were effective in managing the home and ensuring it was a safe environment.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibility to notify Care Quality Commission (CQC) of any notifiable incidents in the home. However we found one incide

Inspection areas



Updated 9 December 2016

The service was safe.

Risk assessments and support plans had been completed to help minimise harm.

People were given their medications safely and in accordance with their needs.

Staff understood how to recognise abuse and how to report concerns or allegations.

There were enough staff on duty at all times to ensure people were supported safely.

There was good monitoring of the environment to ensure it was safe and well maintained.



Updated 9 December 2016

The service was effective.

Staff said they were well supported through induction, supervision, appraisal and the home's training programme.

People received enough to eat and drink and chose their meals each day. They were encouraged to eat foods which met their dietary requirements.

People's physical health needs were monitored and recorded.

The home followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) for people who lacked mental capacity to make their own decisions. An assessment to determine a person�s capacity had been carried out.



Updated 9 December 2016

The service was caring.

People had choices with regard to daily living activities and they could choose what to do each day.

Staff we spoke with showed they had a good understanding of the people they supported and how they were able to meet their needs.

Staff demonstrated kind and compassionate support. They described to us how they supported people to be independent both in the home and the community.



Updated 9 December 2016

The service was responsive.

Support plans were person centred and promoted independence. People were involved in the decisions about their care and support.

People had their needs assessed and staff understood what people's care needs were.

Visits to health services such as the GP or Optician were made in order to ensure people received the most appropriate support.

A process for managing complaints was in place to ensure issues were addressed within the timescales given in the policy.


Requires improvement

Updated 9 December 2016

The service was not always well led.

The registered manager had failed to report a notifiable incident to the Care Quality Commission.

There was a registered manager in post. They were not based at the home but were kept informed through a regular weekly meeting by the home manager who had day to day responsibility.

The service operated a person centred culture. This meant people were supported to live a fulfilled life doing what they wanted to do.

The service had a quality assurance system in place with various checks completed to demonstrate good practice within the service.