Archived: RNID Action on Hearing Loss Thornton Gate

Updated 13 June 2018

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 is 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.

The comprehensive inspection visit took place on the 02 May 2018 and the inspection was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because people who use the service are often out and we needed to be sure people were available to speak with us. The inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector who was supported by a British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter. This was so we could talk with people and understand their experiences of receiving support. At the time of the inspection there were 8 people receiving support.

Before our inspection visit we reviewed the information we held on RNID Action on Hearing Loss Thornton Gate. This included notifications we had received from the provider, about incidents that affect the health, safety and welfare of people who received support. We also reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR) we received prior to our inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. In addition we contacted the local funding authority and asked them their views on the service provided. We used all information gained to help plan our inspection.

With consent, we visited three people in their homes and spoke with them about their experiences of receiving support. We also spoke with two relatives. In addition, we spoke with four care staff and the registered manager. During the inspection we also gained feedback from two health professionals who had experience of working with the service. They gave positive feedback. We observed the interactions between people who received support and the staff. This helped us assess the experiences of people who received support.

We looked at care records of four people who received support and a sample of medicine and administration documentation. We also viewed a training matrix and staff rotas. We looked at records relating to the management of the service. For example, we viewed records of checks carried out by the registered manager, accident records and health and safety certification.

Updated 13 June 2018

RNID Action on Hearing Loss Thornton Gate was inspected on the 02 May 2018 and the inspection was announced. This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to younger adults who may be living with sensory impairment, learning disability and/or mental health challenges. At the time of the inspection there were 8 people receiving support. People who use the service live in private flats. The office is situated within the same building as the flats. The service is staffed on a 24 hour basis with sleep in facilities for staff.

The provider had a registered manager in place. 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 February 2016 the service was rated ‘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.

Each person we spoke with had their own tenancy agreement with a private landlord. This meant the care they received from RNID Action on Hearing Loss Thornton Gate was separate from their tenancy agreement and should they choose to change their care provider they would have the option to remain in their own home. This showed the registered provider was working in accordance with registering the right support guidance. Registering the right support is a CQC policy for providers supporting people with a learning disability and/or autism.

We found the service was responsive to people's needs. People told us they were supported to live independent lives and were consistently involved in the service provided. People lived lives which focussed on the achievement of goals and targets set by them. Care records recorded the care and support people received and the progress made towards people’s goals.

The registered manager completed a series of checks to identify where improvements were required in the quality of the service provided. Staff told us they were informed of the outcomes of these.

People told us they were able to see health professionals if needed and care records reflected the health professional’s advice and instruction.

Staff were aware of the importance of promoting people’s individual rights and of the equality and diversity issues people they supported may experience.

People told us staff knew them well and respected them and their homes. People told us they felt valued by staff.

People were supported by staff who were caring and respectful. Staff understood the communication barriers people they supported experienced. Staff used British Sign Language (BSL) to communicate with people and information was produced in formats which met people’s individual needs. This included Easy Read, pictorial and BSL.

We found there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were carried out to ensure suitable people were employed to work at the service and people who used the service were given the opportunity to be involved in the recruitment of staff. Staff received an induction on starting work at the service and training and supervision was available to help them develop and maintain their skills.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least

restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and appropriate arrangements were in place to help protect the rights of people who were unable to consent to their care.

Staff told us they were committed to protecting people at the home from abuse and would raise any concerns with the registered manager or the Lancashire Safeguarding Authorities so people were protected. People who received help and support told us they felt safe.

Staff supported people to receive their medicines safely and people told us they were happy with the help they received.

Individual risk assessments were carried out in relation to each individual's care and health needs as well as any environmental risks. This meant risks to people who received help and support were minimised. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable of the assessments and the action they needed to take to maintain people’s safety.

People were supported to have a healthy diet. Documentation contained the likes and preferences of people who received support.

Technology was used to help ensure people’s safety and promote independence. For example, we saw flashing lights and doorbells were in use as well as vibrating alarm clocks and pillows. This meant people were able to maintain their independence and could be alerted to emergencies if required.

Relatives told us they were consulted and involved in their family members care. People we spoke with confirmed they were involved in their care planning and they were happy with the level of involvement they had.

Staff we spoke with were able to describe the help and support people required to maintain their safety and people who lived at the home told us they felt safe.

People told us they could raise their views on the service provided and they felt involved in this. We saw minutes of meetings where people were invited to share their views and were asked their opinion on the service provided.

There was a complaints procedure and people were aware of this. People we spoke with told us they had no complaints, but they if they did these would be raised to the registered manager or staff.

We found people were supported to maintain their homes cleanliness and pictorial prompts to support good practice handwashing was displayed in communal facilities at the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.