Archived: Sunderland City Council - 3 Fenwick Close

People’s experience of using this service: The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support through promoting choice, involving people in their local community and promoting their independence. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

People’s care was personalised to their individual needs. Relatives said their family members received good care. People and staff engaged well with each other; there were many positive interactions between people and staff during our visit.

Relatives and staff told us people were safe. Staff understood their safeguarding and whistle blowing responsibilities; they knew how to raise concerns. Staffing levels ensured staff were available to support people with their individual needs. New staff were recruited safely.

Incidents and accidents were monitored effectively; the findings were analysed to checks for trends and patterns.

Relatives told us the home was clean and well maintained. Staff completed checks to maintain a clean and safe environment. People received the correct medicines at the correct times.

Staff received good support and completed the training they needed. People were supported to have maximum 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 knew people’s needs especially well; this was used effectively to support people to make to make choices and decisions. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and to access healthcare services.

Detailed assessments were carried out to identify people’s care and support needs; this included considering religious, social and lifestyle needs. The assessment was used to develop individualised care plans. Staff supported people to choose and participate in activities.

Staff and relatives said the home was managed well. The provider was restructuring its services when we inspected, relatives felt this had resulted in high staff turnover. There was a structured and effective approach to quality assurance. There were regular opportunities for people, relatives and staff to give feedback.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Rating at last inspection: Good (the last report was published on 26 July 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor this service and inspect in line with our reinspection schedule for services rated good.

Sunderland City Council - 3 Fenwick Close provides care and support for up to three people who have a learning disability. The home is one of three homes situated in a small close that is set in its own landscaped grounds. There is one manager responsible for the management of all three homes in Fenwick Close. They have an office base on the close. The close is for the sole use of people living there, their families and staff. The home does not provide nursing care. At the time of the inspection there were three people living at the service.

The manager had been in post since February 2015. At the time of the inspection they were not registered with the Care Quality Commission. The last registered manager cancelled their registration on 18 April 2016.

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.

Relatives told us they thought their family members were safe and well cared for. They were involved in decision making as they wanted to be and told us the communication was good.

Staff understood safeguarding and risk management plans were in place to identify and control any risks to people. Contingency plans provided staff with guidance on how to respond in emergency situations.

Recruitment practices were safe and staff felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. There were three staff members available during the day to support three people.

Staff were well supported in their role and said they had all the training they needed to provide people with appropriate care and support.

People were supported to make day to day decisions. Staff understood where people may lack capacity and were able to describe how they would make decisions for people in their best interests.

Communication passports and care plans were person centred and detailed the support people needed and the areas where they were independent. This supported people to maintain skills and be involved in aspects of their care.

Relatives and staff said they had no concerns about the service. Relatives knew how to complain but said they had no need to do so.

The manager spent time with people supporting them, and understood their needs and communication methods well. Relatives told us the manager was approachable and supportive.

Quality assurance systems identified action that needed to be taken to ensure high quality support was provided for people.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

The service was safe. Records showed that people's needs and the risks associated with their care had been assessed and reviewed when needed.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which apply to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

The service was effective. Care plans were examined and showed that needs had been assessed. These records were thorough and other records showed where staff met those assessed needs. Observations showed staff acted on information within care plans to meet people's needs. Feedback from relatives confirmed that needs were met and they felt that the home provided good quality care. One person told us ' I can't fault the care'

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. Observations during our visits showed the staff cared about people's welfare. They were careful to use language that people could understand. Staff also checked the answers they received from people to ensure their understanding of people's wants and needs was correct.

Parents and other people important to the people using the service made positive comments about the care received by their relatives and friends. One relative said, '(the) Care staff are lovely friendly and really show they care.' Another relative said, 'I am confident that my (relative) receives the care he needs; the staff are quick to let me know about anything going on his life'

Is the service responsive?

The home was responsive. Records showed when people's needs changed their risk assessments and care plans were changed. Records also showed that people were taken to see their GPs or other specialists when they needed specialist advice about their care. One person told us, 'If he needs to see the doctor, the staff are quick to get an appointment and let us know what's going on'

Is the service well-led ?

The service was well led. The manager was experienced at working with people with profound learning disabilities. She had systems in place to monitor what happened in the home and we observed that she was an active presence within the home. A relative said, 'The manager does listen.' Another told us, 'She is very enthusiastic about the care they give our (relative).'

We were supported on this inspection by two experts by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using, or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. We asked the experts by experience to spend time with the people living in the service to find out their views about what it was like to live there.

They told us that the staff seemed to know what the people liked and did not like. All the staff they met were very friendly and polite towards them. One of the experts by experience told us that the staff had made them feel at home and were easy to talk to.

The experts by experience told us that they had found the staff to be very respectful of the peoples' personal space and their belongings. They told us that they found that the people at the home were encouraged to help with the some of the cooking.

The experts by experience told us that they found the home comfortable and the rooms contained personal items. However, one of the experts by experience used a wheelchair and they found it difficult to manoeuvre in the kitchen and lounge. They thought the garden was nice but some of it would be difficult to access by people who used a wheelchair.

During the inspection, the staff members on duty were observed speaking to people in a kind and respectful way. We also observed that the people were clean and well groomed.