You are here

Archived: St Andrews Road Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 July 2016

The inspection took place on 4 July 2016 and was announced. 193 St Andrews road provides care and support to three people with a range of complex health and support needs. It is situated on a main road just outside the centre of Bridport.

The service 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.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. The registered manager worked shifts at the service as well as their management role and staff were deployed to meet the individual needs of each person and what they had chosen to do each day.

People were protected from avoidable harm by staff who knew them well and understood the risks they faced. Risk assessments were comprehensive and focussed on supporting people to be as independent as possible whilst supporting and managing their individual risks. Staff were recruited following appropriate pre-employment checks and received appropriate training for their role.

People were supported to live in a safe environment because fire safety, building and equipment checks were carried out regularly and any issues were recorded and actioned.

People received their medicines as prescribed and we saw that they were stored safely and recording was accurate and regularly audited.

Staff had daily contact with the registered manager and were encouraged to speak with them whenever they needed to. Supervisions were regular and staff were encouraged to discuss and raise any issues and to consider further development and training.

People were supported to make decisions or to be involved in best interests decisions where they were unable to make decisions for themselves. Staff understood the relevant legislation around this and records were robust.

Staff understood how to offer people choice and we saw that people were involved in choices about all aspects of their support in ways they were able to understand.

People were supported by staff in a way which was kind and respectful. Rapport between people and staff was good and there was a relaxed atmosphere at the home. Staff ensured that they were mindful about how to maintain peoples privacy and dignity.

Relatives were regularly contacted to discuss any issues and were involved in reviews of their relatives care. Records were person centred and detailed, they gave histories of the people living at the home and focussed on what people liked and what their interests were.

There was an open culture at the service and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Communication between staff and the registered manager was good, they encouraged staff to tell them about ideas and they had plans for how to further develop the service.

The registered managed encouraged best practice by linking with other organisations and ensuring they provided staff with information from research and regular updates about the service and any policy changes.

Quality assurance was robust and included checks carried out at the service and overview audits which were completed by Encompass head office.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 July 2016

The service was safe

People were supported safely by staff who knew them, and there enough staff to support peoples needs.

Peoples risks were minimised because they had individual risk assessments and staff knew their role in reducing these risks.

People were protected from the risks of abuse because staff understood the possible signs of abuse and how to report these

People received their medicines safely and they were stored securely.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 July 2016

The service was effective.

People received care from staff who had the necessary skills and knowledge to support them.

People who were unable to make decisions about their care had decisions made on their behalf. These decisions were in line with legislation and made in peoples best interests.

People were supported to make choose what they wanted to eat and drink and were involved in preparation of meals. Their likes and dislikes were taken into account.

People had prompt access to healthcare services

Caring

Good

Updated 29 July 2016

The service was caring

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring in their approach and there was a relaxed atmosphere in the home.

Staff supported people to maintain their privacy and dignity

People were supported to make choices about how they were supported and staff knew how to communicate with people

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 July 2016

The service was responsive

People had individual activities they were involved in and chose how to spend their time. Activities were varied and enjoyed by people at the service.

People were encouraged to feedback about their care and were included in any decisions about their support.

People had person centred support plans which focussed on how they wished to be supported.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 July 2016

The service was well led

People were supported by a registered manager who knew their individual needs and communicated effectively with staff.

People were supported by staff who had regular staff meetings to discuss any issues or changes and were encourage to suggest changes and developments which would improve the service for people.

There were quality assurance systems in place which ensured that any errors or issues were identified and improvements made.