• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Langdon Foundation

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

24-26 Tewkesbury Drive, Prestwich, Manchester, Greater Manchester, M25 0HG (0161) 740 5900

Provided and run by:
Langdon College

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 4 August 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.

This was an announced comprehensive inspection which took place on 27 June 2016.

In line with our current methodology we contacted the service 24 hours before our inspection and told them of our plans to carry out a comprehensive inspection. This was because the location is a small home for younger adults who may have been out during the day; we needed to be sure that we could make arrangements to meet them. We also needed to ensure that the provider and staff were available to answer our questions during the inspection.

This announced inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before this inspection we reviewed the completed provider information return (PIR); this is a document that asked the provider to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they are planning to make. We looked at information we held about the service and provider, including notifications the provider had sent us. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to send us by law. We also contacted the local authority contract monitoring and safeguarding teams as well as the local Healthwatch to request information they held about the service. They raised no concerns.

During our inspection we spoke with three people who used the service, the registered manager and four support workers. We also spoke on the telephone with two relatives.

We carried out observations in public areas of the service. We looked at three care records and nine medication records. We also looked at a range of records relating to how the service was managed including three staff personnel files, staff training records, duty rotas, policies and procedures, quality assurance audits.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 4 August 2016

Langdon Foundation is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 8 young people with learning difficulties or disabilities. The home is run by a Jewish organisation and accommodates young people, aged 16-25, in two large semi-detached houses next to each other. There is a shared area between and a shared garden and paved area to the rear of the properties. One of the houses is run specifically for people who have orthodox Jewish beliefs. This is defined as a ‘chareidi’ service with stringent measures and attention paid to the environment and support to ensure this is in line with religious needs. People who live at the houses also attend an education college that is run by the same organisation. At the time of our inspection there were five young men living in the houses.

This was an announced comprehensive inspection, which took place on 27 June 2016.

The service had a registered manager. 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 told us they felt safe at Langdon Foundation. Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people from abuse and staff had received training in safeguarding adults. Staff were able to tell us how to identify and respond to allegations of abuse. They were also aware of the responsibility to ‘whistle blow’ on colleagues who they thought might be delivering poor care to people. We found that the service recognised the importance of how safe the residents felt. At weekly meeting residents were asked about their safety in the home and in the community.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Staff had been recruited safely and received the induction, training, support and supervision they required to be able to deliver effective care.

People had access to a range of health care professionals and safe systems were in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were identified and direction was given to staff on how to reduce or eliminate those risks, whilst maintaining and promoting people’s independence.

Arrangements were in place to ensure people’s rights and choices were protected should they be unable to consent to their care and treatment in the service. Staff had received training in and understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The service was working within the principles of the MCA.

The service placed great importance on person centred care and on promoting people’s independence and choice. Care records were detailed and contained information on what was important to and for people, their support needs, preferences and routines. They gave information about what people could do for themselves and how staff could promote people’s independence. Care records were reviewed regularly. People and their relatives had been involved in decisions about their care and in reviewing the support they received.

The service recognised and valued how people communicated. We saw that a variety of recognised communication systems were used including PECS, which is a system of picture and symbols, Makaton and British Sign Language. The service also recognised and valued people’s own communication methods. Policies and important information was available in pictorial form. This would help people who may have difficulty reading words to understand their rights and what they could expect from staff and the service.

There was a respectful approach to people whose behaviour might challenge the service. Records contained information about what may make someone upset or angry and guided staff in how to respond, what to say and what to do to help the person and diffuse situations.

People’s religious needs were respected and met. They were supported to observe and practise their culture and religion.

People chose what they ate and were involved in shopping and cooking. The service followed Beth- Din dietary laws. We saw that special attention was paid to the correct storage and preparation of food in line with this.

There was a wide range of activities available for people to join in if they wished. People were supported to maintain their interests and hobbies.

We observed that staff supported people in a patient and friendly way. Staff were polite and respectful. They took time to explain to people what they were being asked about or asked to do and gave people time to answer. There was a friendly rapport between staff and people who lived at the home.

The was a complaints procedure for people to use if they wanted to raise any concerns about the care and support they received. There was a system in place to record complaints and the service responses to them.

There was a robust system of weekly, monthly and annual quality monitoring and auditing in place. These included seeking people and their relatives views about the service. Senior managers of the service also met regularly to review audits and any issues or ideas about the service were discussed.

There was a system for ensuring health and safety checks within the home were completed. Equipment was appropriately maintained and serviced.

People we spoke with were positive about the registered manager, staff and the service. They told us the service was well managed. We found the registered manager to be enthusiastic, open and committed to person centred care and continually improving the service.

Staff told us they liked working for the organisation and were complimentary about the registered manager, their approach and the way they managed the service.