Archived: Ellasdale Road

Ellasdale Road is a residential care home, which provides care and support for up to six adults who have learning disabilities and autism diagnoses. There were six people living at the home at the time of our inspection. They had a range of complex care needs associated with living with autism. People had complex communication needs and required staff who knew them well to meet their needs.

Ellasdale Care Home is a semi - detached three storey home. All bedrooms were single occupancy. There were two communal lounges, a separate dining room and kitchen.

A registered manager was in post. 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. The registered manager was not available on the day of the inspection.

Staff were trained in adult safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if they considered people were at risk of harm or if they needed to report any suspected abuse. People told us they felt safe at the home.

Systems were in place to identify risks and protect people from harm. Risk assessments were in place and reviewed monthly. Where someone was identified as being, at risk, actions were identified on how to reduce the risk and referrals were made to health professionals as required.

Accidents and incidents were accurately recorded and were assessed to identify patterns and triggers. Records were detailed and included reference to actions taken following accidents and incidents. Reference was also made to behaviours, observations and other issues that may have led to an accident or incident.

Policies and procedures were in place to ensure the safe ordering, administration, storage and disposal of medicines. Medicines were managed, stored, given to people as prescribed and disposed of safely.

Staffing numbers were adequate to meet the needs of people living at the home. The provider used a dependency tool to determine staff allocation. This information was reviewed following incidents where new behaviours were observed which might increase or change people's dependency level.

Safe staff recruitment procedures ensured only those staff suitable to work in a care setting was employed.

The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff sought people’s consent about arrangements for their care.

Staff were skilled in working with people who had Autism. Training included autism awareness, communication and supporting challenging behaviours.

Food was produced using fresh ingredients, to a high standard and offered good choice. People could choose to eat in the dining room or other areas of the home. Drinks were provided at regular intervals and on request.

People had access to healthcare professionals when they needed it. This included GP's, dentists, opticians and psychiatrists.

Staff were caring, knew people well, and treated people in a dignified and respectful way. Staff acknowledged people's privacy. Staff had positive working relationships with people.

Staff knew people's individual needs and were able to describe to us how to provide care to people that matched their assessed needs. People were fully involved in the assessment of their needs and in care planning to meet those needs. We could see for ourselves that care was given in line with the guidance in people's care plans.

People were supported to attend a range of activities based on their individual needs and wishes. Relatives told us they could visit when they wanted and that there were good communication links with the home.

Staff listened and acted on what people said and there were opportunities for people to contribute to how the service was organised. People knew how to raise any concerns.

The views of people, relatives, health and social care professionals were sought as part of the quality assurance process.

Quality assurance systems were in place to regularly review and improve the quality of the service that was provided.

At the time of our visit, four people were preparing to leave the home to go on holiday later in the day. We observed staff members, who were accompanying them, assist in their preparations. One person we spoke with told us, "I like holidays. I like them (the staff)". The person also indicated that they felt happy at the home.

The relative we spoke with said, "The home is as good as it could be. I worry about my relative but I know they're safe".

We noted that the home ran an extensive programme of social and educational events and that most of the people living at the home attended a local Resource Centre every weekday.

The staff we spoke with told us that they were properly supported to carry out their duties effectively. One staff member told us, "It's a pleasure to work here. The staff are friendly and the work is very rewarding".

People told us they were treated with respect, and supported by staff who promoted their independence. We found good quality information to advise prospective service users, their families and/or representatives about the type of service provided at Ellasdale Road. There were good systems of assessment and risk assessment.

People told us about their plans of care and support, and confirmed that they had been involved in decisions about their care and support. Care plans were followed on a daily basis, and interventions were informed by guidance and best practice. There was guidance to support staff dealing with emergency situations.

People told us they felt safe at the home. Staff had been trained in safeguarding and understood adult protection issues related to the needs of service users.

People said they liked the staff who supported them. Staff said they felt well supported and valued by the organisation running the service.

We found arrangements to monitor the quality and safety of the service. There were methods to engage service users, families and other stakeholders at the home. People said they would feel comfortable making a complaint, as staff and management were supportive toward complainants.