You are here

Cambian Asperger Syndrome Services Limited - 14 Southwood Avenue Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 January 2017

The inspection took place on 15 November and 21 November. Both visits were unannounced. It was carried out by a single inspector.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

14 Southwood Avenue is a care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to eight people diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorders and learning disabilities. Five people were living at the home at the time of our inspection. The registered manager explained that the home was a 38 week service meaning people who live there go back to their families during college holidays as the home closes during these times.

On the ground floor there was a communal kitchen, dining room, living room and games room. There was also a staff office, medical room and toilet. On the first floor there were four bedrooms and a communal bathroom. There were a further four bedrooms on the second floor. All bedrooms had a sink and a toilet, six of these had showers. Two people shared a bathroom.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and training records showed that they had received training in this. The home was starting to complete capacity assessments and record best interest decisions where appropriate.

We were told the food is good. There was an effective menu planning system in place for people who received meals from the service. Other people chose to be independent with their cooking. Food records we looked at did not show us how the service was supporting people with nutrition. The service was able to explain and show how they were. Capacity assessments were currently being completed to reflect this and evidence how people had been given appropriate support and information to make informed decisions. People told us cooking was important to them.

People were supported to access healthcare appointments as and when required and staff followed professional’s advice when supporting people with ongoing care needs. An advocate visited the service on a regular basis and contact information was seen on the people’s notice board.

People, relatives and staff told us that the service was safe. Staff were able to tell us how they would report and recognise signs of abuse and had received training in this.

Southwood Avenue had comprehensive risk management systems in place. There was a signing in and out book for people which referenced risk assessments relevant to the activity taking place.

Care files were in place which detailed the care and support people needed to remain safe whilst having control and making choices about how they chose to live their lives. Each person had an individual risk assessment in place which linked to their behaviour support plans. These ensured risks to people were managed and that people were protected.

Medicines were managed safely, securely stored, correctly recorded and only administered by staff that were trained to give medicines. Medicine administration records reviewed showed no gaps in the recording of medicines administered. People were being supported to manage their own medicines safely.

Staff had a good knowledge of people’s support needs and received regular mandatory training as well as training specific to their roles for example, autism, positive behaviour support and incident report writing.

Staff told us they received regular supervisions which were carried out by management. We reviewed records which confirmed this.

People and relatives told us that staff were caring. We observed positive interactions between staff and people. This showed us that people felt comfortable with staff supporting them.

People had their care and support nee

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 13 January 2017

The service was safe. There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s assessed care and support needs.

People were at a reduced risk of harm because staff had completed safeguarding training and were able to tell us how they would recognise and report abuse.

People were at a reduced risk of harm because risk assessments and emergency plans were in place and up to date.

People were at a reduced risk of harm because medicines were managed safely, securely stored, correctly recorded and only administered by staff that were trained to give medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 January 2017

The service was effective. People were supported to maintain healthy balanced diets. Information and support that was given to people to make informed decisions about what they eat were not always recorded.

Staff received training to give them the skills they required to carry out their roles.

Staff were supported and given opportunities for additional training and personal development.

People’s choices were respected and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Capacity assessments were starting to be completed.

People were supported to access health care services as and when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 January 2017

The service was caring. People were supported to take responsibility for their living environment and participate in cooking their own meals.

Staff treated people in a dignified manner and had a good understanding of the people they supported.

Staff empowered people to make decisions about how they liked to live their lives which people told us was important to them.

People were supported by staff that knew them well and spent time with them.

People were supported by staff who respected their privacy and dignity.

People were supported by staff that used person centred approaches to deliver the care and support they provided.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 January 2017

The service was responsive. People were supported by staff that recognised and responded promptly to their changing needs and behaviour.

People were supported to access the wider community both independently and accompanied when necessary.

A complaints procedure was in place. People and their families were aware of the complaints procedure and felt able to raise concerns with staff and management.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 January 2017

The service was well led. People, staff and relative told us the management were good and spoke positively about the care and support provided.

Regular quality audits were carried out to make sure the service was safe and quality meetings took place.

Staff had lead responsibilities which had a positive impact on the service and people who lived there.

Professional boundaries were established. A positive culture which was inclusive was well embedded.

The registered manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities for sharing information with CQC and this was done in a timely manner.