Background to this inspection
Updated
4 January 2019
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014. At our last inspection in July 2016 we rated this service as Good and on this inspection, we found the service remained Good.
Staffordshire County Council – 114 Douglas Road is a care home. People in homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
We used information we held about the service and the provider to assist us to plan the inspection. This included notifications the provider had sent to us about significant events at the service. We also used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We produced an inspection plan to assist us to conduct the inspection visit.
Some people who were receiving respite care had limited levels of verbal communication to be able to give us their feedback of the care they received. Therefore, we observed the interaction between people and the staff who supported them throughout the inspection visit. We spoke with two people who used the service and spoke with four relatives about their experience of the care that the people who used the service. We spoke with four staff and the registered manager.
We reviewed care plans for three people to check that they were accurate and up to date. We also looked at the systems the provider had in place to ensure the quality of the service was continuously monitored and reviewed to drive improvement.
Updated
4 January 2019
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 December 2018 carried out by one inspector. Staffordshire County Council - 114 Douglas Road provides respite care for people with a learning disability. The service has accommodation for up to 13 people; 87 people currently use the service throughout the year for respite services. There were five people receiving a service at the time of our inspection.
The service had a registered manager. 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 our last inspection in July 2016 we rated this service as Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
Staffordshire County Council – 114 Douglas Road 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 was not developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. However, the service was managed to ensure these values were displayed including choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
People continued to receive safe care. Staff understood what constituted abuse or poor practice and systems and processes were in place to protect people from the risk of harm. People were protected against the risk of abuse, as checks were made to confirm staff were of good character and suitable to work in a care environment. There were sufficient staff available to support people. Medicines were managed safely and people were supported to take their medicine as prescribed.
People continued to receive effective care. Staff were supported and trained to ensure that they had the skills to support people effectively. People receiving respite care had access to health care facilities and the staff knew about any care and treatment that was being provided. When people required assistance to eat and drink, the provider ensured that this was planned to meet their preferences and assessed need.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People made decisions about their care and staff helped them to understand the information they needed to make informed decisions. Staff sought people’s consent before they provided care and people were helped to make decisions which were in their best interests. Where restrictions were identified, applications were sought to ensure these were lawful.
The service remained caring. People were supported by staff who were caring and kind and who knew their needs, preferences and what was important to them. Staff understood how people communicated and they promoted different ways of communicating. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity, encouraged people with making choices, and promoted independence. Relatives and health and care professionals were involved with how care and support needed to be provided. People continued to have relationships with people who were important to them.
The service remained responsive. People’s care was reviewed at each period of respite care to ensure it reflected any changing support needs. People received support from staff to enable them to be involved with activities and do the things they enjoyed. People were encouraged and supported to express their views about the care and support provided and staff were responsive to their comments and any concerns.
The service remained well led. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and enable the provider to drive improvement. Staff felt supported and people knew who the registered manager was; relatives had confidence in the management team. The provider had an ongoing action plan that showed how the service was continually improving.