The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Community Access Network - 85 Drove Road

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

85 Drove Road, Swindon, Wiltshire, SN1 3AE (01793) 635560

Provided and run by:
Community Access Network Limited

All Inspections

19 and 22 June 2015

During a routine inspection

85 Drove Road is a care home service registered to provide personal care for up to 3 people who have learning disability.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 19 and 22 June 2015.

The service had a registered manager who was responsible for the day to day running of the home. 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.

The home, a semi-detached house with an enclosed rear garden and parking to the front, was situated on a busy main road on the edge of the town with some shops, and a bus stop close by.

Staff were provided with clear lines of responsibility and accountability. The staffing allocation was usually one member of staff on duty at any time. If a member of the permanent staff was unable to work a shift, the service used its own staff to provide cover. If that was not possible agency staff were used only a last resort.

The service did not have policy and procedure in place when deploying agency staff to ensure they had the necessary qualifications, competence, skills and experience. We did not see a full set of records on risk management and the actions staff should take in emergency situations. This was a breach of Regulation 12 (1) (b) (c) (d) of the Health and Social Care Act (2008) Regulations 2014.You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The service had systems in place to keep up to date with best practice and to promote improvement and development. The registered manager said there were very few accidents and incidents and they knew about any that had occurred. This was confirmed by the information the registered manager gave us and records that we read.

The service had arrangements in place to ensure people were protected from abuse. Staff showed good understanding and attitude towards safeguarding. Each person who uses the service had their own personalised support plan which promoted their individual choices and preferences.

People went out into the community to enjoy leisure time and also to attend health appointments. People who use the service were involved in doing household tasks such as: shopping, cleaning, gardening and laundry. On inspection, most communal areas of the house were clean and tidy; some areas were very dusty and needed to be cleaned.

People and their family members were complimentary about the service. There had been no complaints since our last inspection in June 2014. One relative said they thought the service was caring and well led. People said they felt safe and happy living at 85 Drove Road. They said were pleased with the service and if they needed to raise an issue they felt confident that they would be listened to and their concern would be acted on.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out what must be done to make sure that the rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment. CQC is required by law to monitor the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. This includes decisions about depriving people of their liberty so that they get the care and treatment they need where there is no less restrictive way of achieving this. DoLS require providers to submit applications to a ‘Supervisory Body’; the appropriate local authority, for authority to do so.

We found that the service obtained people’s consent before care and treatment were provided. There was understanding of how to carry out assessments of capacity to follow the MCA best interest decision making process in circumstances when people lack the capacity to give consent. People signed to say they agreed to their support plans, risk assessments and other documents such as positive behaviour support plans. However, there were no records of the service’s assessments of people’s capacity to agree to these important decisions. We have made a recommendation about this.

We observed that staff acted in a caring, respectful way. People who use the service were helped to make choices and decisions about how their care was provided and how the service was run.

4 June 2014

During a routine inspection

An adult social care inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

As part of this inspection we spoke with two people who use the service, a relative of a person who uses the service, the registered manager, two staff and an external social care professional. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the home which included, people's records, risk assessments, staff rota, training files and records used to monitor the safety of the home. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

People's care plans detailed how the person wanted their needs to be met. Their risk assessments identified risks associated with personal and specific health related issues, and recorded guidance for staff to minimise those risks.

People told us they felt safe. They said they would have no hesitation to approach staff if they were worried about their safety or worried about the services provided. Staff had received training to recognise what constitutes abuse and the action to take to protect people.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the care and support they received. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. A relative of a person said: 'oh yes I'm more than happy with the services provided and know my X is. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. People told us they were able to do things at their own pace and were not rushed. Our observations confirmed this. A person told us: 'staff always support me with housework and cooking and I go shopping sometimes on on my own'.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. People told us staff discussed with them what was important to them. Records confirmed people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided that met their wishes. People had access to activities that were important to them and had been supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.

Is the service well-led?

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and worked well as a team and spoke positively of the recent new manager in post. People told us the manager and staff were approachable and that they felt listened to.

30 October 2013

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with told us they were happy living in the home and felt safe, cared for and listened to by staff. Comments included, 'I go out on my own, but sometimes I go down town with staff' and 'I'm happy living here'.

People told us if they were worried they would speak with staff or with the manager. They told us they felt they would be listened to if they had a concern. However, we found that people's care and support was not being planned and delivered in line with their individual assessed needs.

Incidents' of behaviours that had challenged the services had not been reported to safeguard people and others.

We found there was not enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs at all times. This was mostly when behaviours by people had challenged the services and risk of harm to people and others were greater. We also found there were not enough staff to support people in the home, whilst others were being supported by staff in the community.

We saw that staff had found it difficult to locate records they needed to inform them about how to meet people's needs. Incidents of people's challenging behaviours were not recorded and were not measured to enable staff to identify possible triggers of behaviours to safeguarding people and others.

27 September 2012

During a routine inspection

We last inspected this home in March 2011and we identified concerns about the standard of Cleanliness within the home. At this inspection we found that these concerns had been addressed.

We spoke with all three people who lived in the home. They told us they had been involved in planning their care and what they could do each day. People told us they were treated with dignity and respect. We saw that staff were familiar with people's needs and gave them opportunities to make choices.

The care plans we saw provided individual details of people's needs, wishes and preferences. People's healthcare needs were also met. The home sought advice from external healthcare professionals where necessary. A range of activities was provided and people could choose whether they wished to take part.

We observed that people living in the home had a positive relationship with the staff and that they felt supported by them. Staff were supported through training and the manager had effective systems in place to monitor the performance of the home.

3 March 2011

During a routine inspection

People told us that they had got to know the local area. One person said that they supported the local football team and they could walk to the ground to watch matches.

People said that could choose the meals that they wanted. They made some of their own meals and helped to prepare the main meals that people had together. We saw people taking responsibility in the home, for example by answering the telephone and opening the front door to visitors.

People mostly managed their own personal care. Staff supported people with their day to day health needs, although health action plans had not been completed. People received support with their medicines and these were mainly being well managed. People told us that they could talk to staff if they had any concerns.

People could personalise their rooms as they wished and staff respected their privacy. They helped with the cleaning of the home, although we saw that people needed more support to ensure that all areas were clean and well decorated.

People said that they did some things independently by going out on their own or spending time in the home without staff support. In the past, people had been asked about their goals for the future, so that plans could be made. However this had not happened recently.