You are here


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Slater Centre on 9 September 2021. 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 The Slater Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 8 October 2018

During a routine inspection

The Slater Centre provides personal care to up to 12 people. The service provides care and support to people living in two shared house, (Heffernan House and Stella Maris House), in a supported living setting, so that they can live as independently as possible. At the time of inspection 11 people were receiving this service. People all had needs associated with learning disabilities or autism, some of whom may display behaviours which challenge the service. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living. This inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support an overall rating of good. In the “Effective” domain the service had improved to “Outstanding”. 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.

People were provided with highly effective care and support by a well-trained and qualified staff team who received regular ongoing support and development. People’s healthcare needs were very well met and the service advocated positively for them to receive the care and treatment they needed. People living with epilepsy received excellent support because staff had been trained and understood its individual impact on each person. Effective monitoring systems had been established to monitor seizures as safely as possible with the least disturbance.

People with complex dietary needs received excellent support. Staff were well informed and trained to provide specialist diets where necessary and did so effectively to minimise the impact of their illness on people.

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. People were supported to access a wide variety of activities and experiences in the community and had opportunities for supported work placements.

People’s rights, dignity and privacy were promoted by the staff in the way they provided support. Consent was obtained as far as possible prior to support being offered. Where necessary, appropriate professionals and other significant people had been involved in making ‘best interest’ decisions, if people were unable to make particular decisions themselves.

People were supported to maintain their safety as much as possible. Foreseeable risks were identified and assessed and appropriate action was taken to minimise them. Staff understood how to keep people safe and knew how to report any concerns. They were confident that management would take appropriate action should they report any issues.

People’s medicines were managed safely on their behalf by staff who had received training and had their medicines management competency assessed. The service supported a national initiative to reduce the unnecessary use of medicines for people with a learning disability. Behavioural support was offered using approved interventions for which staff had attended recognised training. The level of people’s recorded incidents had reduced significantly when compared to their history in previous placements. Staff recognised in the early stages, where people might require support to manage their behaviours. They were skilled at diversion and distraction techniques to refocus people onto things they enjoyed.

People’s needs were regularly reviewed involving relevant others, to ensure care plans remained up to date and relevant. Care plans and associated records were detailed and supported staff to deliver person-centred care.

The service had a robust recruitment system to ensure as far as possible, the suitability and skills of pot

Inspection carried out on 11 December 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 11 December 2015 and was announced. We gave the registered manager 48 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to make sure someone would be in the office.

We had not previously inspected the service, which had been registered in November 2014.

The Slater Centre is a domiciliary care service providing care and support to seven people living in their own homes with family. Three of the seven people supported were children. People all had needs relating to a learning disability or autism and some people had additional physical disabilities.

A registered manager was 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.

The service kept people safe and appropriately assessed any risks to them. Recruitment processes were robust to safeguard people from being supported by unsuitable staff.

Staff were appropriately supported and trained and enabled to develop their skills and knowledge. Relatives and people had confidence in the staff and management.

Relatives felt the service was very effective in meeting people’s needs. A lot of support was provided to enable people to access activities and events in the community which they might not otherwise be able to attend. Families felt the service also supported them through practical advice as well as by enabling them to have time to focus on other family members.

The service listened to the opinions and suggestions of families and took account of their and people’s views when planning care and support.

Relatives felt the service listened to them and responded to any concerns that had been raised. Their views had been sought via surveys, reviews and family liaison meetings.