Background to this inspection
Updated
16 September 2017
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
The inspection took place on 24 and 25 April 2017and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed people’s permission to visit them.
In preparation for the inspection we looked at the previous history for this service including the last inspection report, any feedback and notifications which are important events the provider is required to tell us about by law. We had received a copy of the provider’s information return which gives us information about the service, what it does well, and improvements they plan to make.
The inspection was undertaken by one inspector. We spoke with six people using the service and three relatives gave us feedback. We spoke with staff working in each service and spoke with the manager, compliance manager and the provider.
At the inspection we also looked at three care and support plans, viewed staff records and other records relating to the management of the service.
Updated
16 September 2017
The inspection was announced and took place on the 24 and 25 April 2017. The provider of the company and registered manager oversee two registered services on the same site. Fairway House is registered for personal care and Link House for residential care. We inspected both services together as they have shared staffing, and policies. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice to ensure we could meet people using the service. We have not inspected either service since a change in their registration, (ownership) where there was a new provider in March 2015.
Fairway House provides personal care to adults with a learning disability. One person lives in their own house and there are two other houses with four people in each. They have a shared tenancy and individually contracted hours around their support needs.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection.They were registered for both services. 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 service was very well managed and run in the interest of people using the service. The service was continuously adapted to ensure it met people’s current and changing needs. The service was appropriately staffed and staff worked flexibility around people’s needs. Staff were familiar with people’s needs and provided continuity of support.
There were safe systems in place to ensure people were protected from unnecessary risks and staff knew what actions to take to mitigate risk. People were supported to maintain their accommodation and equipment to ensure it was safe to use. People were familiar with the services approach to risk management and were involved in decisions about their care, welfare and environment. They were supported to take risks when it was their choice to.
People took their own medicines and checks were carried out by staff to ensure they did so safely.
Staff understood different types of abuse and knew what actions to take should abuse occur or they suspected someone to be at risk of harm or actual abuse.
Staff recruitment procedures were sufficiently stringent to help ensure only suitable staff were employed. Staff were supported in their role and had the necessary competencies. There was a thorough induction, ongoing training and support for staff. This included regular supervision, observation of practice, and regular appraisals. Training was bespoke and around the needs of people using the service.
Staff were highly motivated and had developed good relationships with the people they were supporting and extended this support to people’s family and friends. Staff supported people to maintain relationships of their choosing and to make their own decisions about this.
Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA ensures that people’s capacity to consent to care and treatment is assessed. If people do not have the capacity to consent for themselves the appropriate professionals, relatives or legal representatives should be involved to ensure that decisions are taken in people’s best interests according to a structured process.
People were supported to maintain good health and staff encouraged people to have a healthy lifestyle and participate in regular exercise. People were fully involved in menu planning and preparing meals for themselves and others they lived with.
People were encouraged to live independent, fulfilling lives and had opportunities to participate in a range of different social activities, work placements and day centres. There was opportunity for evening and weekend activities and annual holidays. This helped ensure people were fully engaged and participating within their local communities.
People had care and support plans which documented how their needs should be met in line with their wishes. Plans showed what they had achieved or what they were hoping to achieve. Staff worked consistently in line with people’s plans.
People received medical attention as required and staff monitored people’s physical and mental wellbeing to enable them to seek and prompt support, when this was required.
The service was very well led and staff worked cohesively in line with the services aims and objectives. Staff were highly motivated and took every opportunity to engage with people and promote meaningful activity. They supported people without judgement and enabled people to have a full life as possible and were skilful in balancing positive risk taking with the right to self-determination and independence.
The service had audits in place to measure the success and effectiveness of the service it provided. It took into account feedback about the service to help them improve the service and provide in a way that met people’s wishes and aspirations.