You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 June 2018

This inspection visit took place on 4 May 2018 and was unannounced. The accommodation at 2-4 Watcombe Circus is situated in Nottingham. It comprises of two large houses which have been joined together. Each person has their own bedroom and there were shared toileting and bathing facilities. There are shared spaces on the ground floor which include two lounges, a dining room and a kitchen. The home is registered for twelve people and at the time of our inspection twelve people were living in the home.

2-4 Watcombe Circus is a care service and was registered before the introduction of the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. However the provider aimed to develop these values which 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. At the last inspection in April 2017 the service was rated requires improvement. At this inspection we found improvements had been made in the areas effective and well led, however further improvements are still required in the ‘Well-led’ section. The inspection was completed by one inspector

2-4 Watcombe Circus is in the process of changing the registered manager. We spoke with the temporary manager during the inspection. The new manager was to commence their role over the next month and had begun their registration with us. 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 were supported by sufficient staff who had received training that reflected their role. When people required additional support with an activity or appointments this was arranged and reflected in the staffing requirements.

Medicines were managed safety and there was a range of health care professionals involved in supporting people’s wellbeing and ongoing health needs. Risk assessments had been completed and guidance provided including evacuating the building in an emergency.

Lessons had been learnt following events to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. Safeguards had been raised and staff understood the importance of protecting people from harm. The care plans were person centred and included care needs and preferences. Information was offered in alternative formats and ranges of communicating methods were available. People were offered opportunities to follow their interest and social time.

Staff had established positive relationship with people. People’s independence was encouraged and this was promoted with meals and daily living skills. When people required support this was done with their dignity in mind and respect of their wishes. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

There was a complaints policy available. The provider understood their requirements under the regulations and sent us notifications about events and incidents. They had displayed their rating at the home and on the website.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 2 June 2018

The service was safe

People were protected from harm and risk assessments had been completed. There was sufficient staff to meet people’s needs.

Lessons had been learnt and positive action taken.

Medicine was managed safety.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 June 2018

The service was effective

People were supported when making decisions.

Staff had received training and latest information on people’s conditions or health care needs. Improvements had been made to environment.

Health care needs were responded to ensure ongoing wellbeing

Nutritional needs had been reflected in people’s choices of meals

Caring

Good

Updated 2 June 2018

The service was caring

People and staff had established positive relationships.

Care needs were provided with respect and considered peoples dignity

Relationships and independence was promoted.

When required advocacy was available to support people

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 June 2018

The service was responsive

Care plans were person centred and contained details about the person’s needs and preferences. People’s communication methods had been considered.

People were offered opportunities to follow their interests and social needs

There was a complaints policy and process in place

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 2 June 2018

The service was not always well led

Audits had not always been completed to reflect the needs and to ensure improvements had been carried out.

People were able to provide feedback in an informal way.

Staff felt supported by the provider and temporary manager.

The rating was displayed and we had received notifications