During an assessment under our new approach
South Street provides accommodation for a maximum of 8 people with a learning disability and/or autistic people requiring personal care. There were 8 people living at the home when we visited.
The last rating for South Street under the previous provider was requires improvement. This provider was registered with us on 24 July 2024, and this is their first assessment. We have identified breaches in relation to safe care and governance systems.
We found safety events had not always been appropriately reviewed and used for understanding and learning. Environmental and infection prevention and control (IPC) risks had not always been identified and acted upon. Gaps in staff training had not always been identified and acted upon. This meant people were at risk of receiving unsafe care and support. Medicines were not always managed safely. Medicines were not always administered as prescribed, and guidance was not always in place for topical and ‘as required’ medicines. Governance systems were not always effective at identifying risks to people. Which placed people at an increased risk of harm.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. 'Right support, right care, right culture' is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
We saw aspects of ‘Right support, right care and right culture’ guidance was delivered by the service. For example, we observed the model and culture of care and size and layout of the service promoted people being able to exercise choice, control and independence in how they chose to their lives. This was reflected in the feedback we received from staff, who demonstrated an awareness and commitment to promoting and supporting people’s choice and control. The service was also well-located in a community with easy-to-access amenities, which people accessed and engaged with on a regular basis.
We found some safety event records which showed people had been harmed as a result of behaviours from another person had not been effectively reviewed by leaders, which could have supported understanding and learning of such events. There were also inconsistencies in relation to reporting safeguarding concerns to external partners and, while they told us how they would raise concerns should they need to, not all staff had completed safeguarding training.
A safeguarding policy was in place, which staff understood.
Some care plans and risk assessments provided clear, person-centred and detailed, and staff were knowledgeable of people’s needs. People interacted positively with staff, who treated them with kindness and understanding and sought to provide person-centred care which promoted people’s choice, control and independence. Staff were positive about the support they received from leaders.
In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.