We carried out a review of the data available to us about Laurieston House on 6 July 2023. 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 Laurieston House, you can give feedback on this service.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated Good…
People continued to receive safe care. There were enough staff to support them and they were recruited to ensure that they were safe to work with people. People were protected from the risk of harm and received their medicines safely. The risk of infection was controlled because the home was clean and hygienic. Lessons were learnt from when mistakes happened.
The care that people received was effective. 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 received training and support to be able to care for people well. They ensured that people were supported to maintain good health and nutrition; including partnerships with other organisations when needed. The environment was met people’s needs.
People continued to have positive relationships with the staff who were caring and treated people with respect and kindness. There were lots of opportunities for them to get involved in activities and pursue their interests. Staff knew them well and understood how to care for them in a personalised way. There were plans in place which detailed people’s likes and dislikes and these were regularly reviewed. People and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had a complaints procedure although they had not received any.
The registered manager had systems in place to receive feedback on the quality of care provided. There were quality systems in place which were effective in continually developing the quality of the care that was provided to people.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This unannounced inspection took place on 3 December 2015. The service was last inspected on 5 February 2014 and met all regulations inspected.
Laurieston House provides accommodation and support with personal care for five people with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were three people using the service.
The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.
People’s needs were assessed and their care plans provided staff with clear guidance about how they wanted their individual needs met. Care plans were person centred and contained appropriate risk assessments. They were regularly reviewed and amended as necessary to ensure they reflected people’s changing support needs.
People were happy, comfortable and relaxed with staff and said they felt safe. They received care and support from staff who were appropriately trained and confident to meet their individual needs and they were able to access health, social and medical care, as required. There were opportunities for additional staff training specific to the needs of the service. Staff received one-to-one supervision meetings with their manager. Formal personal development plans, such as annual appraisals, were in place.
There were policies and procedures in place to keep people safe and there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff told us they had completed training in safe working practices. We saw people were supported with patience, consideration and kindness and their privacy and dignity was respected.
Safe recruitment procedures were followed and appropriate pre-employment checks had been made including evidence of identity and satisfactory written references. Appropriate checks were also undertaken to ensure new staff were safe to work within the care sector.
Medicines were managed safely in accordance with current regulations and guidance by staff who had received appropriate training to help ensure safe practice. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines had been stored, administered, audited and reviewed appropriately.
People were being supported to make decisions in their best interests. The registered manager and staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People’s nutritional needs were assessed and records were accurately maintained to ensure people were protected from risks associated with eating and drinking. Where risks to people had been identified, these had been appropriately monitored and referrals made to relevant professionals, where necessary.
There was a formal complaints process in place. People were encouraged and supported to express their views about their care and staff were responsive to their comments. Satisfaction questionnaires were used to obtain the views of people who lived in the home, their relatives and other stakeholders.
We found that the provider had an effective process to ensure that people's consent had been sought about various aspects of their care. We also found that the care and welfare of people had been managed appropriately.
We spoke with two people who lived at the home. As far as they were able, one person told us; 'I am happy here'. The other person told us; 'I like going to the day centre. I like living here'.
Staffing rotas showed that suitable numbers of qualified, skilled and experienced person's had been employed for the purposes of carrying on the regulated activity.
We also found that the provider had regularly assessed and monitored the quality of the services provided in the carrying on of the regulated activities.
However, we found that the provider was not meeting our standards for the management of medication ..
We saw that people's dignity and rights were respected at the home, and that care planning was detailed and personalised.
We found that staff were well trained, and we that steps were taken to ensure the home was safe for people receiving care.