Archived: Six Acres Residential and Supported Accommodation Limited

Updated 24 July 2018

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.

The inspection took place on 27 June 2018 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector from the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Before commencing the inspection, we looked at any information we held about the service. This included any notifications that had been received, any complaints, whistleblowing or safeguarding information sent to CQC and the local authority. We also contacted the quality assurance team at Wigan Council, a commissioner at Wigan Council and an Independent Metal Capacity Advocate (IMCA), who supported a person living at the home.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the course of the inspection we spoke to the registered manager, two staff members and one person who lived at the home. We also completed observations using the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI 2). This is a method for capturing the experiences of people who may have cognitive or communication impairments and cannot verbally give their opinions on the service they receive.

We looked around the home and viewed a variety of documentation and records. This included three staff files, two care plans, Medication Administration Record (MAR) charts, policies and procedures and audit documentation.

Updated 24 July 2018

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Six Acres Residential and Supported Accommodation Limited on 27 June 2018.

Six Acres is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Six Acres a small privately owned care home providing accommodation and support for up to six adults with learning disabilities. The home is a bungalow with six separate bedrooms, shared bathroom and toilet facilities and two communal lounge/dining areas. At the time of our inspection there were two people living at the home.

At our last inspection on 21 December 2016, we rated the service as 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.

During the last inspection, although the home was rated as good overall, it was rated as requires improvement in the key question effective, as we identified one breach of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was in relation to good governance, specifically that neither nutritional screening nor pressure ulcer risk assessment tools were in place. At this inspection we found the provider had addressed the previous regulatory breach and was now meeting all regulatory requirements.

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 living at Six Acres. The home had appropriate safeguarding policies and procedures in place. Staff were all trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and had a good knowledge of how to identify and report any safeguarding or whistleblowing concerns.

Staffing levels were based on the needs of people living at the home and their schedules. Rotas demonstrated enough staff had been deployed to meet people’s needs and accommodate outings or activities.

We saw the home was clean and had appropriate infection control processes in place. The staff carried out all cleaning tasks, following a daily and weekly cleaning rota. All cleaning equipment was stored safely and securely.

Care files contained detailed risk assessments, which were reviewed regularly to reflect changing needs. This helped ensure staff had the information they needed to support people to stay safe and well.

Medicines were stored safely. The home had effective systems in place to ensure medicines were ordered, stored, received and administered appropriately.

Staff received appropriate training, supervision and appraisal to support them in their role. Training completion was monitored via a matrix, to ensure staff remained up to date.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible, with the home’s policies and systems supporting this practice.

People were encouraged to make decisions and choices about their care and how they wanted to be supported. People had control over how they spent their time and what activities they completed. People's consent to care and treatment was sought prior to care being delivered.

Both the registered manager and staff we spoke with demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is used when someone needs to be deprived of their liberty in their best interest. We saw the service was working within the principles of the MCA and had followed the correct procedures when making DoLS applications.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were being met. Professional guidance for people requiring a modified or special diet was in place and had been followed. People were involved in choosing what meals they ate and when and where they ate them.

Throughout the inspection we observed positive and appropriate interactions between the staff and people who used the service. Staff were seen to be caring and treated people with kindness, dignity and respect.

Care plans contained detailed, personalised information about the people who lived at the home and how they wished to be cared for. Each file contained people’s aims and goals, which were regularly reviewed and updated, to ensure their needs had been met.

The home had a complaints procedure in place and whilst none had been received since the last inspection, people told us they knew how to do so, should they ever need to.

The home had a range of systems and procedures in place to monitor the quality and effectiveness of the service. Action plans were drawn up, to ensure any issues had been addressed. Feedback of the home was sought from people, relatives and staff and used to drive continued improvement.