Michael Batt Foundation - 13 Longmeadow Road

13, Longmeadow Road is a residential care home providing personal care to one person with a learning disability and/ or Autistic spectrum needs. The service is provided in one adapted building.

The service operated in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The service was a domestic style property. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We had concerns about the provider not ensuring some health and safety precautions were being taken. For example in respect of fire precautions in place and testing of portable electrical appliances. There also were not any control measures in place to prevent the risk of legionella. However once issues about legionella and portable electrical appliances were highlighted, the registered persons agreed to get these checks done. A visit from the fire officer was arranged and has made recommendations. Otherwise appropriate risk assessment procedures were in place so any risks to people, staff or visitors were minimised.

The service had some systems to monitor service delivery and bring about improvement when necessary. However we had some concerns about health and safety precautions in place, and before our visit the provider had not taken suitable action to minimise these risks.

The service had suitable safeguarding systems in place, and staff had received training about recognising abuse.

Staff were recruited appropriately. Staffing levels were satisfactory, and people received timely support from staff when this was required.

The medicines system was well organised and staff received suitable training. People received their medicines on time.

The building was clean, and there were appropriate procedures to ensure any infection control risks were minimised.

The service had suitable assessment and care planning systems to assist in ensuring people received effective and responsive care.

Staff received induction, training and supervision to assist them to carry out their work.

People received enough to eat and drink. People were involved in food shopping and cooking for the household.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People received support from external health professionals and were encouraged to live healthier lives.

People said they received support from staff which was caring and respectful. Care promoted people’s dignity and independence. People were involved in decisions about their care.

People had the opportunity to participate in activities and to spend time with the wider community.

People felt confident raising any concerns or complaints. Records showed these had been responded to appropriately.

The service was managed effectively. People and staff had confidence in the registered manager.

The manager was able to demonstrate the service learned from mistakes to minimise them happening again.

The team worked well together and had the shared goal of providing a good service to people who lived at the home.

The service worked well with external professionals, and other organisations to provide good quality care.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 2 June 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good:

People remained safe at the service. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and support them with activities and trips out. Risk assessments were completed to enable people to retain their independence. People received their medicines safely.

People continued to receive care from staff who had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support them. Staff were well trained and competent. 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. People's healthcare needs were monitored by the staff and people had access to a variety of healthcare professionals.

The staff were very caring and people had built strong relationships with the staff. We observed staff being patient and kind. People's privacy was respected. People or their representatives, were involved in decisions about the care and support people received.

The PIR stated; “MBF (Michael Batt Foundation) recognises the value of small consistent support teams to ensure those supporting the individual have a positive relationship and have full and detailed knowledge of the person history and needs. My Life Packs is a holistic tool which includes detailed information about how an individual wants and needs to be supported. It is a working document which forms the basis of the individual's support.”

The service remained responsive to people's individual needs and provided personalised care and support. People were able to make choices about their day to day lives. Complaints were fully investigated and responded to. One person said they saw the registered manager regularly and discussed any issues they had.

The service continued to be well led. People and staff told us the registered manager was approachable. The registered manager and provider sought people's views to make sure people were at the heart of any changes within the home. The registered manager and provider had monitoring systems which enabled them to identify good practices and areas of improvement.

Although we were able to meet the people who lived at the service the amount of time they chose to speak to us was limited. When we did get the opportunity to meet people they said that they were happy living at Longmeadow and appeared happy and relaxed with staff and their environment.

Records and discussion with staff confirmed that people were involved in decisions about their care and support. Staff respected people's rights to make decisions and when necessary provided clear information about possible risks if support was refused.

The care records we looked at were detailed and provided staff with good information about people's needs. One staff member we spoke to said " There is good communication between the staff team, although we don't work together we meet regularly and have a good understanding of how people need supporting".

Involvement in the local community was encouraged and people were supported to access employment opportunities when possible.

Suitable arrangements were in place to ensure the safe management of medicines kept in the home. Records confirmed that people using the service were provided with information about their medicines as well as any risks associated with them.

The service had a robust system in place to regularly monitor and review the quality of the service.

The amount of time people using the service chose to speak to us was limited so we also spent time looking at records and speaking to staff. This helped us gain a better understanding about people's support needs and experiences of the service.

We saw that staff treated people respectfully at all times, promoting choice and independence whenever possible. The interactions and relationships we observed were positive and helped create a homely, age appropriate environment for the people using the service.

People were involved in the planning of their care and had access to their personal information.

Care plans were detailed, however the homes reviewing process did not ensure that this information was accurate and up to date.

Staff had a good understanding of issues relating to abuse and systems were in place to ensure that any incidents of abuse were recognised, reported and acted on to keep people safe.

Sufficient staffing levels were in place and staff received a range of training opportunities to ensure they could meet people's needs.