You are here

Staffordshire County Council - 114 Douglas Road Good


Inspection carried out on 7 December 2018

During a routine inspection

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

Inspection carried out on 30 June 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 30 June 2016 and was unannounced.

114 Douglas Road is a respite service for people who have learning disabilities and/or autism. The service provides support and accommodation for a maximum of 13 people. At the time of our visit, seven people were using the service. Many people who use the service have complex needs.

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.

People and relatives of those who received a respite service at 114 Douglas Road, felt people were safe. People were supported by a staff group who had been trained to work effectively with people who had complex needs.

Staff understood safeguarding policies and procedures, and followed people’s individual risk assessments to ensure they minimised any identified risks to people’s health and social care. Checks were carried out prior to staff starting work at the service to reduce the risk of employing unsuitable staff.

The provider understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards and the service complied with these requirements. Medicines were administered safely to people, and people had good access to health care professionals when required.

There were enough staff to meet people’s social needs during their respite stay. People enjoyed activities within and outside of the service, such as going to the pub, supermarket, cinema and other day trips. People received care and support which was tailored to their individual needs. People enjoyed the meals provided and they met people’s dietary needs.

Staff were motivated to work with people who received respite care at 114 Douglas Road. They were caring and treated people who came to stay with dignity and respect. They also enjoyed mutual friendly banter with people.

The management team were open and accessible to both people and staff. There were monitoring systems in place to ensure the service provided a safe, reliable and good quality service to people who needed respite.

Inspection carried out on 21 January 2014

During a routine inspection

This service is shown as having two registered managers. Kathryn Ann Little is the current registered manager. Sandra Forester no longer manages the location her information appears as she has yet to formally notify us that she has left.

114 Douglas Road provides respite care and accommodation people who are normally cared for by relatives or friends in their own home.

We saw that people were involved in the planning of activities both in the community and within the home itself. People were treated with respect and their dignity was maintained.

Care was planned and delivered in a way which was calculated to meet people�s individual needs. A member of staff said, �We send out an admissions form two weeks before people are due to arrive. The form asks for confirmation of contact details and updates on medical history or medicines since they were last here�.

The home had a dedicated domestic team. We saw evidence of daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly cleaning schedules which staff had completed.

Staff rotas were completed three weeks in advance. Staff numbers varied dependant on the number of people present and their level of need. There were always sufficient staff on duty to meet people�s needs.

The service had a complaints policy and procedure. People who used the service were encouraged and supported to raise issues.

Inspection carried out on 7 November 2012

During a routine inspection

At the time of our inspection there was a relatives meeting taking place. We were able to sit in on this meeting and spoke with people there about the care and support provided to their loved ones. They told us that they were very happy with all the services provided. One person said, "Staff are fantastic", another person said, "I couldn't fault this place".

Each person had a care plan developed and care was centred on people as an individual and considered all aspects of their individual circumstances.

The home had been adapted to meet people's needs including the latest assisted technology. This helped to ensure that people's safety was monitored whilst maintaining as much independence as possible.

The provider had systems in place and staff had the skills and knowledge to protect people from abuse. One person said, "I feel happy walking away knowing that X is safe".

The staff we spoke with were happy with the training and support they received. There was a comprehensive programme of staff training in place which ensured that staff had the skills and knowledge to be able to meet the needs of people.

The management of the home was open and inclusive and people felt able to make suggestions for improvement. We saw that people were encouraged to air their views and opinions and these were taken into account. The home was managed in the best interests of the people who used the service and they had a voice.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)