13 October 2015
During a routine inspection
ILP Residential is a care home service registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 2 people who have a learning disability. The service had the size and feel of a family home. It had two employees; a husband and wife team who lived in the home on the second floor. The bedrooms and bathroom of people who use the service were on the first floor, and the shared kitchen, sitting room and conservatory were on the ground floor.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on13 October 2015.
The service had a registered person who was responsible for the day to day running of the home. 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. In addition to the registered person, one other member of staff was employed as a support worker. The staffing allocation was usually a minimum of one member of staff on duty at any time. Agency staff were not used at the home.
People and their families were very complimentary about the service provided at ILP Residential. One person said it was the best place they had ever lived. A family member said, “It’s home from home.” People were equally complimentary about the staff at ILP, one person said, “I think they are tremendous.” Another person said their relative received “lovely care” and “couldn’t be in a better place.”
Some of the records were not up to date and were incomplete. We have made a recommendation about this, but it is important to note that this did not negatively impact on the service because staff knew the people who use the service very well, and took necessary actions to promote their safety and well-being.
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. We found that the service obtained people’s consent before care and treatment were provided. However, there were no records of necessary assessments of people’s capacity to make some decisions. For example decisions on how people wanted support for financial management to be provided. We have made a recommendation about this. However, the impact on people’s lives was very low because in practice, their finances were being managed according to their wishes.
The service provided person centred care which promoted equality and diversity. Each person who uses the service had their own personalised support plan which promoted their individual choices and preferences.
People were consulted and involved in developing the way their care was delivered. Family also said that staff kept them informed and worked in partnership with them. The service valued and acted on the feedback it received from people in a responsive, flexible way.
People’s independence was promoted and they were enabled to participate in meaningful activities which enriched and added to their quality of life. Staff listened to people and helped them express their views. Trusting relationships had been built up, and staff were highly motivated to provide compassionate care which maximised people’s well-being, safety and independence.
The service had systems in place to keep up to date with best practice and to promote improvement and development. There was a system in place to record and learn from incidents and accidents. The registered person said there had been no accidents since the last inspection on 17 December 2013.
Arrangements were in place to ensure people were protected from abuse. Staff showed good understanding and attitude towards safeguarding.