Archived: Langdon Park

18 Langdon Park is a home for up to six people who have learning disabilities, some of whom have additional physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were six people living in the home.

The registered manager had recently left the organisation and the provider had successfully recruited a replacement who would apply for registration once 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.

People who lived at the home were protected from the risk of abuse happening to them. People did not communicate conversationally or in other conventional ways. However, throughout the inspection visit they were able to demonstrate through their body language and interaction with staff that they felt safe and well cared for.

We saw that people’s health and nutrition were regularly monitored. There were well established links with GP services and other community health services such as occupational therapists, dieticians and speech and language therapists.

Care records were individual to each person and contained information about people’s life history, their likes and dislikes, and information which would be helpful to hospitals or other health support services.

Staffing levels were managed flexibly to suit people's needs so that people received their care when they needed it. Staff had access to information, support and training that they needed to do their jobs well. The provider’s training programme was designed to meet the needs of people using the service so that staff had the knowledge and skills they required to care for people effectively.

There was an open and inclusive atmosphere in the service. Staff told us they found the management team to be approachable and supportive. Staff were able to challenge when they felt there could be improvements.

The provider carried out regular audits to monitor the quality of the service and to plan improvements. Action plans were used so the provider could monitor whether necessary changes were made.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were able to indicate that they felt safe and secure.

The staff we spoke with understood the procedures they needed to follow to ensure that people were safe. They were able to describe the different ways that people might experience abuse and the correct steps to take if they were concerned that abuse had taken place.

We saw that the home was clean and well maintained. Equipment was well maintained and regularly serviced and all health and safety records were up to date. These checks meant that people were not placed at unnecessary risk.

We inspected the staff rotas which showed that there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs throughout the day. People received a consistent and safe level of support.

Recruitment procedures were rigorous and thorough.

The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Although the registered manager told us that no DoLS applications had been made, they were were able to describe the circumstances when an application should be made and knew how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

People all had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. we found that people had been fully involved in the assessment of their health and care needs and had contributed to developing their care plan as far as they were able. Assessments included needs for any equipment, mobility aids and specialist dietary requirements. People had access to a range of health care professionals some of which visited the home. Staff escorted them to healthcare appointments if needed.

This meant that people were sure that their individual care needs and wishes were known and planned for and that they had the equipment they needed to meet their individual needs.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. A staff member told us: "This is their home and when we come to work we have to do what they want".

Staff were aware of people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs. Our observations of the care provided, discussions with people and records we looked at told us that individual wishes for care and support were taken into account and respected.

Is The Service Responsive?

We saw that people were able to participate in a range of activities both in the home and in the local community. The activities provided included ones people could enjoy as a group and others that meet their individual interests. The home has transport which helps keep people involved with their local community.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The home had a system to assure the quality of the service they provided. The way the service was run had been regularly reviewed. Prompt action had been taken to improve the service or put right any shortfalls they had found.

Information from the analysis of accidents and incidents had been used to identify changes and improvements to minimise the risk of them happening again.

People's personal care records, and other records kept in the home, were accurate and complete.