We carried out a review of the data available to us about Magdalen Close Hostel on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Magdalen Close Hostel, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The premises were very clean and hygienic. Cleaning schedules were in place, including for touch points, and the effective completion of cleaning was regularly checked. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and appropriate handwashing and sanitising facilities were available to staff.
There was an established registered manager in place, who had a clear system for recording all COVID-19 testing undertaken on people and staff, ensuring effective action could be taken if required. This also included records relating to influenza and COVID-19 vaccinations. The registered manager regularly updated themselves on latest guidance and local transmission rates to help assess risks and keep people safe.
Staff had recently completed training on baseline observations, and were seeking to include this alongside the regular temperature checks and monitoring of people already taking place. Staff were cohorted to each ‘house’ to reduce the risk of transmitting infections.
People were supported with activities and outside space during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Where people had not been able to visit the beach, they had painted individualised beach huts on the garden fence instead. There was access to pets such as rabbits and a cat, a sensory room and an allotment, as well as a large communal garden and smaller enclosed ones.
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.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Procedures were in place which safeguarded people from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood the various types of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to.
People received care which was person centred and responsive to their needs. They were supported and fully engaged in activities that were meaningful to them. Staff had an excellent understanding of people's backgrounds and they supported people to pursue their interests and hobbies, try new things and learn new skills.
People were supported to take their medicines safely, if required. Systems were in place to record when medicines were given.
Staff continuously looked for ways to improve care, so people had positive experiences and led fulfilling and meaningful lives. They liaised with professionals to make sure that people's health care needs were met.
Social interaction and community acceptance was important and opportunities to access and integrate into the local community were regularly provided.
Peoples' privacy was respected. Staff supported people to make individual choices and had a common aim and purpose to achieve positive outcomes for people. Staff supported people to express their views, so they could understand things from their point of view.
The registered manager and staff knew of their responsibilities regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Risks to people were assessed and control measures put in place to mitigate risks to people's safety. This enabled people to maintain as much independence as possible. There were sufficient numbers of staff to ensure that people's needs were met.
Recruitment practices ensured that staff were of good character and suitable for their roles. Staff received an induction and on-going training to make sure they had the right skills and knowledge. Staff were well supported and had opportunities to discuss any concerns and training needs they might have.
There were positive relationships between people and members of staff. Staff treated people with kindness and took the time to get to know them and their interests whilst providing their care. Staff involved people in producing their care plans to ensure that care was provided to them in the way they wanted it to be.
The service was well led, quality assurance system were in place and the registered manager looked at ways they could continuously improve the service people received.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
This inspection took place on 9 February 2015 and was unannounced.
Magdalen Close provides accommodation and personal care for up to 22 people who have a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. People who use the service may also have mental health needs, a physical disability or may be living with dementia. There are 14 beds for people living at the service on a long term basis and four beds for short stays. In addition there are four separate flats available for people who are preparing to live more independently in the community. At the time of our inspection there were 18 people at the service.
A registered manager was in post at the service. 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.
People were safe because staff supported them to understand how to keep safe and staff knew how to manage risk effectively. Staff knew how to identify abuse or poor practice and were aware of their responsibilities in reporting any concerns. People received safe care that met their needs.
There were enough staff who had been recruited safely and who had the skills and knowledge to provide care and support to people in ways that they preferred.
People’s health and emotional needs were well managed by staff who consulted with relevant health care professionals. People received the support they needed to have a healthy diet that met their individual needs.
People were treated with kindness and respect by staff who knew them well and who listened to their views and preferences.
People were encouraged to follow their interests and hobbies and were supported to maintain relationships with friends and family so that they could enjoy accessing the local community to avoid social isolation
There was an open culture and the registered manager took a hands-on approach in all aspects of the service. Staff were well supported and that their views were valued.
The management team had systems in place to check and audit the quality of the service. The views of people and their relatives were taken into account to make improvements and develop the service.
Staff knew people well and we saw that there were friendly and caring interactions between members of staff and people living in the home. We saw that staff listened to people and treated them with respect.
People received care and support that met their needs and took into account their individual preferences. Staff were able to demonstrate that they understood people's specific needs and they provided care in a person-centred manner. We found that staff received the training and support they needed to provide care and support safely.
We saw that the individual houses were comfortable and homely; the environment was clean and well maintained.
Magdalen Close Hostel was well managed and there were effective processes to monitor the quality of the service. They consulted with people and took their views into account to make improvements.
Relatives who completed surveys as part of the home's quality monitoring process were complimentary about the care provided at Magdalen Close Hostel. One relative said: 'The care and support X has is excellent.' Another relative said: 'There is an excellent team at Magdalen Close. They are highly motivated in the new environment of change and improvement.'
The people living at Magdalen Close Hostel had complex needs and some were not able to speak with us. We saw that people smiled and appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff and others living in the home. Some people spoke with us generally and said they liked living there.
Relatives who returned questionnaires as part of the home's own quality assurance process were complimentary about the care provided at the home. One relative wrote 'The overall arrangements at Magdalen Close are a perfect model of how we see [our relative's] needs being met.' Another relative said 'The staff at Magdalen Close give first class care to [my relative].'
During our inspection we saw that people received good care and that staff treated them with respect.
The service was well managed and there were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.