You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 January 2018

The Bungalow is a service for up to five people with learning disabilities and /or autistic spectrum disorder who may also have behaviours that can be challenging. The service is a single storey property close to the village of Lydd and on the same site as a larger service owned by the provider. There were five people living at the service when we inspected who were all male.

The Bungalow 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 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.

There was a registered manager at the service who was supported by two deputy managers. 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.

At the last inspection on 3 November 2016, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements related to concerns about fire safety, staff training and induction, management of medicines and completion of records. Also quality auditing systems used by the provider had not identified the shortfalls found at our inspection and complaints had not been dealt with appropriately and this action has been completed.”

People were supported to understand how to stay safe and to recognise when they were vulnerable. Staff had received training about safeguarding and understood their responsibilities in relation to reporting any concerns. The registered manager had built a positive working relationship with the local authority safeguarding team and contracted them as required. People were involved in identifying and managing their own risks. Risk assessments gave staff the guidance they required to keep people safe. Risks to the environment were assessed and mitigated. People were now involved in regular fire drills and equipment had been put in place to alert people with hearing loss of a fire. People and staff understood how to minimise the risk of infection and used personal protective equipment when required.

People were supported by staff who had been recruited safely and staffing levels were based on people’s needs and activities. Staff had a thorough induction when they began working at the service. A comprehensive training schedule was in place to ensure staff had the skills they required to meet people’s needs. Staff told us they were supported by the registered manager and deputy managers. All staff attended regular supervision meetings and completed annual appraisals. The registered manager and staff team worked closely with other agencies to ensure they had the knowledge required to meet people’s needs and follow good practice.

People’s medicines were managed safely and in the way they preferred. People were encouraged to be involved in managing their medicines if appropriate. Some people at the service were living with long term health conditions such as diabetes or epilepsy, there was clear guidance for staff about how to support people with their health. People were supported to access health professionals when appropriate and encouraged to take a lead in their appointments. People chose their own menus and were involved in preparing their meals. Staff supported and encouraged them to have a balanced diet.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible;

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 January 2018

The service was safe.

People were supported to understand how to stay safe and were supported by a staff team who understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding.

People were involved in identifying and managing risks.

There were enough staff to meet people�s needs and they had been recruited safely.

People were involved in managing their own medicines where possible. Medicines were managed safely by trained and competent staff.

The service was clean, people and staff understood how to minimise the risk of infection.

Accidents and incidents were reviewed and analysed for learning.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 January 2018

The service was effective.

People�s needs were assessed and support was delivered in line with current legislation and guidance.

People were supported by staff who had the training and support required to carry out their role.

People were supported to plan and prepare their own meals and have a balanced diet.

People were encouraged to be involved in managing their health and to take part in health appointments.

People were supported to make decisions about their day to day care and asked for consent before staff provided support.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 January 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who treated them with compassion and kindness.

People were encouraged to express their views and a ranges of communication tools were available to facilitate this.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 January 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s care plans were person centred and gave staff the information required to meet people�s needs and preferences.

People took part in a wide range of activities and were encouraged to try new things.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 January 2018

The service was well-led.

There was a clear vision for the service which was shared by all and focussed on the needs and preferences of people.

There was a culture of learning and improvement, which was supported by effective auditing systems and regular feedback from people.

The service worked in partnership with other professionals to meet the needs of people.

Staff were motivated and led by the registered manager. They had clear roles and responsibilities.