We carried out a review of the data available to us about 30 Southview 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 30 Southview, you can give feedback on this service.
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.
We inspected this service on 30 December 2014.
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.
The home 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.’
On the day of the inspection there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the home and we saw staff interacted with people in a very friendly and respectful manner. One person told us, “It’s lush. I like it here. We have meetings. I’m choosing the wallpaper for my wall. I can choose what to wear and what to do. I recently went shopping with staff to Newcastle”.
We spoke with two care staff who told us they felt supported and that the registered manager was very approachable. Throughout the day we saw that people and staff appeared very comfortable and relaxed with the registered manager and staff on duty.
People had their physical and mental health needs monitored. There were regular reviews of people’s health and the home responded to people’s changing needs. People were assisted to attend appointments with various health and social care professionals to ensure they received care, treatment and support for their specific conditions.
We saw people’s care plans were very person centred and written in a way to describe their care, treatment and support needs. These were regularly evaluated, reviewed and updated. The care plan format was easy for service users to understand by using of lots of pictures and symbols. We saw lots of evidence to demonstrate that people were involved in all aspects of their care plans.
The care staff we spoke with said they received appropriate training, good support and regular supervision. We saw records to support this.
The care staff understood the procedures they needed to follow to ensure that people were safe. They were able to describe the different ways that people might experience abuse and the correct steps to take if they were concerned that abuse had taken place.
Our observations during the inspection showed us that people were supported by sufficient numbers of staff. We saw staff were responsive to people’s needs and wishes and we viewed records that showed us staff were enabled to maintain and develop their skills through training and development activities. The staff we spoke with confirmed they attended training and development activities to maintain their skills. We also viewed records that showed us there were safe recruitment processes in place.
Procedures for dealing with emergencies were in place and staff were able to describe these to us.
For example, there was a lone working policy and on call procedures for people to follow if staff needed support or guidance.
The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Although no DoLS applications had been made, staff were able to describe the circumstances when an application should be made and knew how to submit one.
Throughout the day we saw staff interacting with people in a very caring and professional way. We saw a member of staff offering to assist a person to go out shopping. The staff were gentle and encouraging and the person happily agreed to their support. We saw when staff offered support to people they always respected their wishes. For example, one person indicated to the registered manager that he would prefer to be supported that day by the member of staff on duty in the sister home located opposite to 30 Southview and owned by the same provider. The manager told us service users often decided who they wished to be supported by each day. The person’s wishes were respected and the staff swapped over. We saw people being offered the choice of what to have to eat for their lunch.
We saw activities were personalised for each person. People also made suggestions about activities and outings during regular house meetings. Where necessary additional staff were provided to enable people to enjoy a range of community facilities and also to support people to attend health care appointments.
People received a balanced diet. We saw people could choose what they wanted to eat each day and this was supported by the staff. There was fresh fruit available so people could help themselves.
We saw the provider had policies and procedures for dealing with medicines and these were followed by staff. In order to promote individualised care, people had a lockable facility in their bedrooms in which their medication was stored securely.
The provider had a pictorial complaints procedure which people felt they were able to use. Both people we spoke with told us they had a keyworker and if they were not happy they would talk to their keyworker, staff or the registered manager about their concerns.
We discussed the quality assurance systems in place with the registered manager. We were told audits of accidents and incidents were carried out and these were investigated by the registered manager to ensure risks were identified and improvements made. We saw records that showed us this took place. We also saw the views of the people using the service were regularly sought and used to make changes.