Archived: 30 Southview

30 South View is a small home providing care and support to up to three people who have a learning disability. Two people were using the service when we inspected.

People’s experience of using this service

The service has been developed and designed 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.

People and staff told us they felt safe at the service. People received support to take their medicines safely. Risks to people's well-being were recorded and updated when their circumstances changed. Staffing was provided at safe and consistent levels that enabled people to go out and access the community when they chose to with support.

People's rights to make their own decisions were respected. People were supported to access healthcare services if needed. Staff had appropriate skills and knowledge to deliver care and support in a person-centred way. The service was keen to pursue any learning and development opportunities for staff and ensured training was well monitored.

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.

The emphasis of support was towards enabling people. People were complimentary about their staff and the positive relationships they had with them. The service ensured people’s families and friends were involved and part of people's lives. Support plans were clearly written and ensured people received care and support as they preferred.

Whilst the service did not currently have a registered manager, the provider was reviewing the way this and nearby services were managed. We saw the service manager had made positive changes at the service in relation to record management and staff and people we spoke with felt supported by them. The values of the organisation of offering choice, inclusion and respect were embedded. This supported people to receive a positive service. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities. The service had a new quality assurance system in place and the service manager said they had received training in this. The service manager had ensured checks took place on the safety and quality of the service.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published April 2017).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up: We will monitor all intelligence received about the service to inform the assessment of the risk profile of the service and to ensure the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.

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

30 Southview provides care and accommodation for up to three people. The home specialises in the care of people who have a learning disability. On the day of our inspection there were a total of three people using the service.

We last inspected the service in December 2014 and rated the service as ‘Good.’ At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’ and met all the fundamental standards we inspected against.

The home had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 who used the service made complimentary statements about the standard of care provided. They told us they liked living at the home, liked the people they lived with and they got along with staff who were friendly and helped them. We saw staff treated people with dignity, compassion and respect and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the present needs of people using the service. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place at this location and carried out background checks when they employed staff to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff training records were up to date and staff received regular supervisions, appraisals and training / development plans were also completed, which meant that staff were properly supported to provide care to people who used the service.

We saw that people were supported to take part in interesting and meaningful activities. They took part in education, leisure and social events and staff were constantly looking for more opportunities for people to enjoy.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare professionals and services. People were supported and encouraged to have regular health checks and were always accompanied by staff to hospital appointments and emergencies.

People at the home were regularly asked for their views about the service and if there was anything they would like to improve. People we spoke with told us that they knew how to make a complaint and found the registered manager approachable with no concerns about the service.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and risk assessments were in place. The registered manager understood their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding and staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults.

We saw medicines audits were carried out regularly by the management team to make sure people received the treatment they needed.

There were robust procedures in place to make sure people were protected from abuse and staff had received training about the actions they must take if they saw or suspected that abuse was taking place.

People told us they were offered a selection of meals and there were always alternatives available. We saw that each individual’s preference was catered for and people were supported to make their own meals and ensure their nutritional needs and tastes were met.

The registered provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and was following the requirements in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The registered provider had an effective complaints procedure in place and people who used the service were made aware of how to make a complaint.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager and were comfortable raising any concerns. People who used the service and their relatives were consulted about the quality of the service.

We found the service adhered to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and where people were unable to make decisions for themselves, best interests’ decisions had been put in place. These had involved social workers, family members, advocates and other professionals.