Archived: 9 Allenby Road

The service offers overnight respite breaks within a homely environment. Personalised support and care is provided for each individual. The service supports people to take part in activities at the location and out in the community including arts and crafts, music and singing, dance, keep fit, cookery and computers. The service is closely linked with the nearby day centre for people with learning disabilities.

At the time of the inspection, there was 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.

The location was last inspected under the 2010 Regulations on 23 January 2014, where the five outcomes we inspected were compliant. This is the first inspection of the location under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

People were not able to tell us themselves they felt safe at 9 Allenby Road. However, we observed that people were supported in a safe way. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable of how to act if abuse occurred and how to report this to managers or other authorities.

Proper maintenance of the premises and grounds was evident. The registered manager was knowledgeable about risks from the building and completed assessments and coordinated repairs to effectively prevent harm to people. Repairs were completed by external contractors and some minor delays occurred whilst waiting for their attendance.

The service had robust recruitment procedures and detailed personnel files. The provider needed to improve their collection of enhanced criminal records disclosures for new staff before they commenced. We met with the provider who assured us they would, which they later confirmed in writing had occurred. We observed staffing levels met people’s needs. People were often out of the building attending activities like the day centre, and staff who stayed on site performed other functions like cleaning and shopping.

Medicines were safely managed. This was not confirmed by regular audits of pharmacists as people did not stay for long periods of time. However, we examined the handling of people’s medicines during our inspection and found that people were safe from harm. We advised the provider to seek guidance and support to ensure people’s medicines records were checked at each subsequent admission.

Infection prevention and control practices were satisfactory. The service was clean and tidy but staff handwashing practices required some improvement. After the inspection, the provider sent us confirmation this was complete.

Staff training, supervision and performance development was effective. Induction programmes and training was evident, but some competency checks and repetition of training was needed to ensure the best effective care. The provider sent us information after the inspection which demonstrated they listened to our findings and took action to ensure staff had the continued knowledge and skills to perform their roles.

The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Better recording of the information about people’s ability to consent was necessary to ensure the service complied with the MCA codes of practice. The service demonstrated that, where necessary, authorisations were recorded to deprive people of their liberty for various decisions.

People received nutritious food which they enjoyed. Hydration was offered to people to ensure they did not become dehydrated. People assisted with shopping and cooking and had the right to choose their own meals.

We observed staff were caring and friendly. As staff had worked with most people over an extended period of time, they had come to know each person better. This was reflected in the care that people received in an ongoing way. People had the right to choose or refuse and this was respected by staff. We saw people’s privacy and dignity was respected during daily hygiene practices.

Responsive care was provided to people. Their wishes, preferences, likes and dislikes were considered and accommodated. Staff knew about the complaints procedure and people had the ability to complain. There were no complaints since our last inspection, although the registered manager and service manager had the knowledge and skills to investigate if a complaint was raised.

The workplace culture at 9 Allenby Road was good. Management was stable at the service and there was a low staff turnover. Staff described a positive place to work and care for people. Staff told us they enjoyed their roles and found management approachable and reasonable. The registered manager, service manager and nominated individual were knowledgeable about quality care and accountable in their roles.

As a result of the inspection and our findings, the provider decided to apply to us to carry out nursing care at the service. We will assess their application and make a decision within a given timeframe.

The relatives we spoke with told us that they were happy with the service provided and that care was of an excellent standard with friendly staff that behaved in a professional manner and who communicated with them regularly.

The people we spoke with told us staff supported them to participate in group visits and activities. Two care workers told us they had been provided with appropriate training courses, one of which was safeguarding training, which they had both completed in the last twelve months to support them to recognise different types of abuse and understand what their duties and responsibilities were with regards to safeguarding vulnerable adults.

The people who use the service told us they felt safe in the house because the staff were always on hand to provide guidance and support. Relatives we spoke with expressed a clear understanding of the complaints procedures in operation in the house, and expressed that, if they had any issues, they knew how to raise concerns with the managers and staff.

Verbal feedback from staff and our observations of the staff on duty evidenced that the provider had an adequate staff development system in place to ensure the quality of care delivered was underpinned by on-going and responsive training.

Support plans were detailed and covered both care and health needs, including likes and dislikes, and included information showing how the person communicated their needs. The plans were clearly laid out with links to guidelines and risk assessments highlighted.

People were protected from abuse because staff were aware of the signs of possible abuse and knew the correct procedures to follow if they had concerns.

There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of people. The manager had recently recruited flexi-time staff. This meant that staff hours could be used when people most needed them. Gaps in the rota were covered using established bank staff or, where necessary, staff from one agency. This ensured continuity of care for people.

The service had a number of ways in which to seek the views of people and their representatives including meetings, surveys, and regular discussions or phone calls. People were supported to understand and use the complaints procedure.