You are here

Archived: Raynel Drive Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 March 2015

This was an announced inspection carried out on the 11February 2015. At the last inspection in April 2014 we found the provider met the regulations we looked at.

Raynel Drive provides 24 hour personal care and support for up to five people who have learning disabilities and complex needs. The care provided is short term. The home 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 this inspection we found the provider had systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff understood how to keep people safe and knew the people they were supporting very well. People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place to make sure suitable staff worked with people who used the service. Staff were skilled and experienced to meet people’s needs because they received appropriate training, supervision and appraisal.

The service met the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards.

Care was personalised and people were well supported. People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. People received good support to make sure their nutritional and health needs were appropriately met.

The service had good management and leadership. The provider had a system to monitor and assess the quality of service provision. Safety checks were carried out around the service and any safety issues were reported and dealt with promptly.

People had access to activities that were provided both in-house and in the community. One person told us they had been to the training centre and they were going shopping on the day of our inspection.

We observed good interactions between staff and people who used the service and the atmosphere was happy, relaxed and inclusive. Staff were aware of the values of the service and knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw copies of reports produced by the registered manager and the provider. The reports included any actions required and these were checked each month to determine progress. These ensured actions were completed to improve service delivery.

We saw a complaints procedure was displayed in the home. This provided information on the action to take if someone wished to make a complaint.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 March 2015

The service was safe.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. Recruitment checks were carried out before staff started working for the provider.

Risk associated with people’s care was identified and managed. Staff understood how to manage risk and at the same time actively supported people to make choices.

Staff knew what to do to make sure people were protected and had a clear understanding of how to safeguard people they supported.

People’s medicines were managed consistently and safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 March 2015

The service was effective in meeting people’s needs.

There was a programme of training for all staff to be able to understand the care and support required for people who used the service.

Staff understood how to support people who lacked capacity to make decisions.

Systems were in place to monitor people’s health and they had regular health appointments to ensure their healthcare needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 March 2015

The service was caring.

People told us they were very happy with the care and support they received. The staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the people’s care and support needs and knew people well. One person told us, “We all like one another and have a good laugh together.”

People looked well cared for and were very comfortable in their home.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 March 2015

The service was responsive

People’s health, care and support needs were assessed and individual choices and preferences were discussed with people who used the service and their relatives. We saw people’s plans had been updated regularly and when there were any changes in their care and support needs these had been addressed.

People were involved in activities in accordance with their needs and preferences.

Systems were in place to respond to concerns and complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 March 2015

The service was well led.

The systems that were in place for monitoring quality were effective. Where improvements were needed, these were addressed and followed up to ensure continuous improvement.

Accidents and incidents were monitored by the registered manager to ensure any triggers or trends were identified.