We carried out a review of the data available to us about Short Breaks Banstead on 6 July 2023. 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 Short Breaks Banstead, you can give feedback on this service.
Short Breaks Banstead is a residential care home providing personal care. The service is a purpose built building designed for short stays and respite care for adults with physical and/or learning disabilities. The care home accommodates up to six people in one adapted building. Two people were using the service at the time of Inspection.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
The size of the service meets current best practise guidance. This promotes people living in a small domestic style property to enable them to have the opportunity of living a full life. It was registered for the support of up to six people. There were deliberately no identifying signs, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were safely supported and protected from harm. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff employed who managed medicines safely and followed good infection control practise. Staff learnt lessons when problems arose.
People’s needs were effectively met. This was a result of their needs and risks being assessed appropriately and staff being suitably trained. People lived a comfortable life because the premises were suitably designed to meet their needs.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
People were looked after by caring and considerate staff who showed how they had formed good relationships with the people using the service.
Staff worked consistently well with other health professionals. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People’s equality, diversity, privacy and dignity were respected and staff encouraged independence. Their views on their care were listened to. They were supported by caring and compassionate staff so their lives were as comfortable as possible.
Staff provided personalised care which meant people experienced good, individualised support. This was a result of the creation of person-centred care plans that staff followed. People’s communication needs were met with their individual needs documented in their care plans. Their concerns were addressed because complaints were responded to and well managed.
The registered manager promoted a positive culture amongst the staff. The registered manager and the staff team understood and acted on their duty of care responsibilities to be open and honest. Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Partnership working was well established with other organisations or agencies for the benefit of the people that used the service. All of this resulted in the people experiencing a well-run service where their needs were met.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection (and update)
The last rating for this service was Requires Improvement (published 18 October 2018). The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and no further recommendations were required to be made to the provider.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At this inspection there was a registered manager who had been registered with the Commission since April 2016. 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.
Short Breaks Banstead is a care home that provides respite care and support on the ground floor of an adapted building. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service provides respite care for up to six people at any one time. The provider told us there were approximately 40 people who used the service for respite at times throughout the year.
The respite service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.” Registering the Right Support CQC policy. The service enables people with complex needs to be supported to live with their families and in the community through a planned respite programme. They also respond to emergency support requests from local authorities where possible.
At this inspection we found some shortfalls in the way some safety checks were completed and flaws in the systems for monitoring the safety of the premises and responding to actions identified from risk assessments. Staff underwent a recruitment checks, however, the provider’s application form did not follow legal requirements in relation to applicants’ job history. Medicines were safely administered and stored but some improvement was needed to an aspect of recording in relation to medicines.
We have made a recommendation in relation to medicines management.
The provider and registered manager acted immediately to address the issues concerned and risks identified. They were open with the Commission about the issues and addressed the gaps in their quality monitoring system that had allowed the problems with recruitment and environmental checks to go unnoticed. Further changes were made to ensure that the improvements needed were acted on and sustained. We will check on this at our next inspection of the service.
There were effective safeguarding procedures in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff understood the different types of abuse and knew to who contact to report their concerns. The registered manager worked proactively with the local authority to ensure people were protected from harm. There were processes in place to learn from accidents and incidents. Individual risks to people were carefully assessed and detailed guidance provided to staff to reduce risk.
There were sufficient numbers of staff at the service. The service was clean and staff understood how to reduce the risk of infections. The environment had been adapted to meet people’s needs.
Staff received sufficient training supervision and support to fulfil their roles and responsibilities. New staff completed an induction when they started work and staff received refresher training and a range of specialist training that helped them support people’s individual needs.
The service was inclusive and prior to joining the service people's needs were carefully assessed in partnership with service users, their families and health and social care professionals where relevant following best practice guidelines to ensure their needs could be met.
Staff and the registered manager understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. 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 support this practice. Staff told us and we saw they sought the consent of people before they delivered care and support.
People were supported to meet their dietary and nutritional needs safely and provide them with sufficient choice. The service worked with health and social care services and professionals to maintain the good health and well-being of people they supported. They supported people when they moved between services through effective communication to ensure their care and support were coordinated well.
We received very complimentary feedback about the care staff delivered from relatives and professionals who used the service. We observed staff treated people with kindness and consideration. Staff clearly respected people’s individuality and promoted their independence. People were involved as far as possible in decisions about their care.
People’s care and support was responsive and personalised to their needs. The service used Positive behaviour support (PBS) where appropriate. This is a person-centred approach to supporting people who display or are at risk of displaying behaviours which may require a response with the aim of improving their quality of life. The service promoted equality and people’s diverse needs were respected and supported.
People were supported to engage in the community and in activities that they enjoyed. People were supported to socialise, learn new skills, and maintain relationships. People and their relatives knew how to complain about the service should they need to. Information was available in a range of formats.
Relatives, staff and professionals gave positive feedback about the management of the service and said their views were listened to. The service worked to keep up to date with best practice and share learning in the team. There was a clear ethos of providing good quality person centred care at the service. Some systems were effective at monitoring the quality of the care provided.
Short Breaks Banstead is a residential home which provides respite accommodation and personal care for up to six people, who have a learning disability and have complex needs. At the time of our inspection there were two people living there. The home consists of two floors; all bedrooms are situated on the ground floor with a separate flat which people can use on the first floor. The home has communal areas including a lounge, dining room, and kitchen.
At the time of our visit, Short Breaks Banstead did not have registered manager 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The manager informed us they had begun the application process to become the registered manager.
People were safe at Short Breaks Banstead. Staff had a good understanding about the signs of abuse and were aware of what to do if they suspected abuse was taking place. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from harm.
There was sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs. People were supported by staff that had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff started work. Staff worked within best practice guidelines to ensure people’s care and support promoted well-being and independence.
Medicines were managed safely. Any changes to people’s medicines were prescribed by the person’s GP and administered appropriately.
Staff were up to date with current guidance to support people to make decisions. Information about the home was given to people and consent was obtained prior to any care given. Where people had restrictions placed on them these were done in their best interests using appropriate safeguards. Staff had a clear understanding of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) as well as their responsibilities in respect of this.
People had enough to eat and drink and there were arrangements in place to identify and support people who were nutritionally at risk. People were supported to have access to healthcare services and were involved in the regular monitoring of their health. The home worked effectively with healthcare professionals and was pro-active in referring people for assessment or treatment.
Staff treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. People’s preferences, likes and dislikes had been taken into consideration and support was provided in accordance with people’s wishes. Relatives and friends were able to visit. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and promoted for example when personal care was undertaken.
People’s needs were assessed when they entered the home and on a continuous basis to reflect changes in their needs. People’s care and welfare was monitored regularly to ensure their needs were met within a safe environment. The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. Management liaised with external agencies to obtain guidance and best practice techniques.
People were encouraged to voice their concerns or complaints about the home and there were different ways for their voices to be heard. Suggestions, concerns and complaints were used as an opportunity to learn and improve the home.
People had access to activities that were important and relevant to them. People were protected from social isolation through systems the home had in place. We found there were a range of activities available within the home and community.