You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about UBU - 67 Elland Road on 9 September 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about UBU - 67 Elland Road, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 16 May 2018

During a routine inspection

UBU - 67 Elland Road is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care under a contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.

UBU - 67 Elland Road is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to seven people who have learning disabilities.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

This inspection took place on 16 and 17 May 2018. The inspection was unannounced on the first day. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting. The second day was announced.

At the last inspection we found the provider did not always keep accurate and up to date health action plans and were rated requires improvement in the effective domain. At this inspection we found health action plans were accurate and updated to ensure people’s needs were met.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. However; the area manager was in the process of applying as a temporary measure until the manager could apply. 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.

Care plan records were not always accurate to show when actions had been taken, therefore we have made a recommendation about records management.

The provider had robust systems and procedures in place to keep people safe and staff were competent in their knowledge of what constituted abuse and how to safeguard people. There was a whistleblowing policy in place and staff knew how to raise concerns should this be required.

Medicines were managed safely although we did find gaps in recording when medicines had been administered. ‘As required’ medicines were administered when needed.

Risk assessments had been completed and reviewed regularly. Accidents and incidents were managed effectively and actions taken to mitigate future risks.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and robust recruitment processes were in place to ensure people were of suitable character. Training was mandatory for staff to ensure they had adequate skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Staff were supported with supervisions and appraisals for further development.

Safety checks were completed regularly and the premises was clean, tidy and action plans showed continuous improvements were being made within the home.

The provider followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) guidance with capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications made. Staff also understood MCA guidance and people were able to provide consent in a variety of ways including through facial expressions and body language.

People’s nutritional needs were met and health professionals were involved in people’s care when required. Health action plans were used when people had health appointments and records showed the improvements made to people’s health.

We observed positive and friendly interactions between the staff and people living in the home. Staff were caring, kind and respected peoples wishes. We saw people were encouraged to remain as independent as possible using alternative communications to allow people to make choices about their care.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected and staff provided explanations when carrying out any personal care to ensure people knew what was happening at all times.

Care plans were person centred and reviewed regu

Inspection carried out on 16 March 2016

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 16 March 2016. Our last inspection took place on 13 January 2015 when we gave an overall rating of the service as ‘Requires Improvement’. We found two breaches of the legal requirements in relation to care and welfare of people who use services and supporting staff. At this inspection we found the provider had made improvements, although we found a breach concerning health action plans which had not been kept up-to-date.

UBU - 67 Elland Road is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to seven people who have learning disabilities.

At the time of this inspection 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.

Staff identified recent staffing levels had been difficult to manage due to absences. The registered manager identified two new members of staff were joining the team pending satisfactory background checks.

Staff were able to identify types of abuse and knew who to report their concerns to if they suspected a person was being harmed. Recruitment practices were safe with appropriate checks having been carried out. People’s individual risks had been identified and assessed and this was reviewed on a regular basis.

Health action plans did not capture the person’s current health needs and.did not match information recorded in care plans. Peoples’ care plans showed health professionals such as PEG nurses, community nurses, neurology and occupational therapists were involved in their care.

People were encouraged to be part of the meal planning process and daily intake notes were completed as required. Staff were supported through an induction process and there was a programme of refresher training sessions which most staff had completed. Staff received regular supervision sessions which were effective, although not all staff had received an appraisal.

This service acted within the principles of the MCA and DoLS and staff were aware of how this affected their role. Positive interactions between staff and people were seen during the inspection. Staff were aware of how to protect people’s privacy and dignity.

People’s care plans were sufficiently detailed and staff agreed these were a good reflection of people’s needs. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis with the involvement of relatives. People accessed a number of activities both in the community and in the home. Where one person had become dissatisfied with a particular activity, the service had responded by changing to a different type of support which the person enjoyed.

Appropriate systems were in place to manage complaints, although none had been received since the last inspection which concerned the care provided. There was a positive culture within the service and staff felt the registered manager was approachable and listened to them. This was reflected in the quality of supervisions and staff meetings.

The service had quality management systems in place, although we saw identified actions were not always followed up. The registered manager completed weekly and monthly checks and followed up on any concerns. The area manager regularly visited the home and carried out their own audits.

We found a single breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Inspection carried out on 13 January 2014

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on the 13 January 2015. At the last inspection in November 2013 we found the provider met the regulations we looked at.

UBU - 67 Elland Road is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to seven people who have learning disabilities.

At the time of this inspection 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.

We found people using the service were safe. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding vulnerable adults and knew what to do to keep people safe. Risk to people was carefully managed. There were enough staff to keep people safe.

The provision of induction, training and supervision required improvement to ensure all staff were provided with up to date skills and knowledge. Staff understood how to treat people with dignity and respect and were confident people received good care.

People received person centred care and were comfortable in their home. In the main, people’s support needs were assessed and plans identified how care should be delivered. However, there were gaps in the care planning process which could result in people’s care needs being overlooked. The service met the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards.

The service had good management and leadership. The provider had a system to monitor and assess the quality of service provision.

We found the home was in breach of regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection carried out on 7 October 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

The manager of the service was on leave at the time of the inspection. We therefore spoke with the deputy manager.

We found the provider had addressed all the issues raised at the last inspection.

The broken tiles in the downstairs bathroom had now been replaced. This ensured the tiles could be cleaned to a sufficient standard to prevent the risk of infection. We saw the underside of the chair seat, which assisted people into the bath, was free from dirt and grime.

A daily routine cleaning checklist was in place. We saw evidence the cleaning schedules were being completed. Daily records of the fridge and freezer temperatures had been recorded the majority of the time. Where they had not been recorded, we saw evidence the management team had picked up on this and had addressed the issue with the member of staff concerned.

Overall, we found people were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.

Inspection carried out on 23 July 2013

During a routine inspection

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements. We saw that best interest meetings had taken place for the care that people were unable to consent to.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. We saw good examples of interactions between staff and people using the service. One member of staff we spoke with told us: �We have a really good and supportive team.�

People were not protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not been followed. We looked around the premises to determine cleanliness and management of infection control. We found there were not effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

Inspection carried out on 19 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experience of people using the service, because some people using the service had complex needs which meant that they were not able to tell us their experiences. One person told us they liked their home and two visitors told us they were perfectly happy with the care and support their relative receives at the home.

We observed that people looked well cared for and staff were attentive to their needs. The atmosphere within the home was relaxed and friendly and people were smiling and looked happy. Staff we spoke with had a good understaning of each individual and were able to taell us about their personal prefernces and what they enjoyed doing. .

Inspection carried out on 9 November 2011

During a routine inspection

People told us staff are professional in their approach to providing care. People said they can generally make decisions and choices about the care their relatives receive. They also told us they were very happy with the care and support provided by staff and staff were kind, considerate and caring and always showed them respect.

Due to their complex needs, some people who use the service were not able to tell us about their experiences relating to this outcome. Those who were able to verbally communicate told us they are happy with the care being provided.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)