We carried out a review of the data available to us about Raleigh House 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 Raleigh House, you can give feedback on this service.
Raleigh House is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care. The home accommodates up to four people in one house. At the time of our inspection four people with learning disabilities were living at the home.
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.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People received their medicines as prescribed. The provider assessed risks to people and took action to reduce these risks. Staff followed best practice in relation to infection control. There were enough staff to support people safely and people received care at the agreed times.
People received the support they needed to maintain their day to day health and in relation to eating and drinking. 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. Staff received the training and support they needed to understand and meet people’s needs.
Staff cared for people with kindness, dignity and respect and involved them in their care. People received consistency of care from staff who knew them well. People’s care was personalised to meet their needs and preferences. Staff supported people to access a wide range of activities they were interested in and annual holidays. Staff understood people’s communication needs. The provider had a suitable process in place to respond to any concerns or complaints.
Two experienced registered managers were in post, one of whom was also a director of the company. Relatives and staff told us the service was well-led and the provider engaged well with them. The provider had sufficient oversight of the service, working alongside staff every day to check high standards were maintained.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (report published January 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up
We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
When we last visited the home on 12 December 2014 the service was meeting the regulations we looked at and was rated Good overall and in all five key questions.
At this inspection we found the service continued to be Good.
Risks to people and the premises were managed well. There were enough staff to care for people appropriately and staff were recruited safely. Medicines management was safe. Staff understood how to keep people safe from abuse.
Staff received the right training and support to care for people. People received food and drink of their choice and had access to healthcare they required. Staff were providing care in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Staff knew the people they were caring for including the best way to communicate with them. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and supported people to build independent living skills.
People were provided with a range activities they were interested in by staff. People’s care plans were current and were involved in their care reviews. A suitable complaints policy was in place and people, relatives and professionals were encouraged to provide feedback on the service to the provider.
Clear line management was in place and the two registered managers and staff understood their roles and responsibilities well. A range of suitable audits were in place to assess and monitor the quality of service delivery.
The service met all the fundamental standards. Further information is in the detailed findings section of the report.
This unannounced inspection took place on 12 December 2014. When we last visited the home on the 3 January 2014 we found the service was meeting the regulations we looked at.
Raleigh House is a care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to four people with learning disabilities, some of whom had limited verbal communication. At the time of our visit, there were four people living at the home.
The service had two registered managers in post who job share. 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 using the service told us they felt safe. Relatives and professionals commented on the ‘home from home atmosphere’ of the service. On the day of our inspection we found the service to be calm and relaxed.
Staff received regular training and support and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities in caring for people living at Raleigh House. The provider had made sure staff had sufficient skills and experience to do their job effectively. Staff were knowledgeable in recognising signs of potential abuse and the action to take if they suspect people were being abused.
People’s needs were assessed and plans put into place so their needs could be met. This included people’s health needs and making sure they stayed well. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with their GP and other healthcare professionals as required to meet people’s needs. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts.
All staff that were on duty were caring and attentive. There was a great deal of attention to detail to make sure everyone in the home was well groomed and appropriately dressed.
People who used the service were encouraged to be as independent as possible. There were a range of activities for people to participate in, if they wanted to. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint if they were not happy with the service they were receiving.
The registered managers were very approachable. People and staff we spoke with told us the registered managers listened to their views and acted on them.
We were only able to conduct short interviews with the people who used the service as their ability to communicate was limited by their medical conditions. However, we spoke with two people; one of whom informed us that they "do like it here". The other person confirmed they were "happy".
We spoke with a family member who informed us that they were "content" and "really proud" of the service. They informed us that there "hadn't been any concerns" and that staff had been "very caring". We also saw that family members had completed surveys and had stated that they were "very satisfied" and that "the needs of the residents were top priority".
We spoke with two members of staff who said they were "happy" working for the service and felt "well supported". One member of staff explained that the managers of the service had been accommodating to their significant commitments outside of work which "helped a lot".
We observed the interactions between staff and people who used ther service. People were treated with care and respect as staff engaged service users in decision making processes.
We found that care plans and records of people as well as the policies for managing the service were up to date, clear and accurate.
We observed the safeguarding policy and examined staff training records. We found that staff had received appropriate induction and training. We found that there were sufficient staff and that they were provided with an induction and mandatory training.