Background to this inspection
Updated
31 March 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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.
This inspection took place on 5 February 2016 and was announced. This was so that key people could be available to participate in the inspection, and for people living in the service to be made aware we would be visiting their home. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors.
Before the inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service. This included previous inspection reports, and any notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law and any complaints we have received. 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. We sent out questionnaires for staff and visiting professionals to complete. However, we did not receive any responses from visiting professionals. This was to enable us to ensure we were addressing any potential areas of concern.
There were six people using the service at the time of our inspection. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the views of these people, who had complex needs which meant they were not all able to tell us about their experiences. We spent time in the service observing the care provided. We spoke with the registered manager, and six care workers. We sat in on a handover between staff shifts. We spoke with one relative who was visiting the service and subsequently received feedback from two relatives over the telephone about their experiences of the service provided. As part of our inspection we looked in detail at the care provided for three people, and we reviewed their care and support plans. We looked at records of meals provided, medication administration records, the compliments and complaints log, incident and accidents records, policies and procedures, meeting minutes, and staff training records. We also looked at the service’s quality assurance audits.
The service was last inspected on 13 August 2013 when no concerns were identified.
Updated
31 March 2016
This inspection took place on 5 February 2016 and was announced.
11-13 Hawkhurst Road is a supported living scheme where people with a learning disability live in their own home under a tenancy agreement, and is registered to provide personal care. People received personal care or social support to promote their independence. The support provided was tailored to meet people’s individual needs and enable the person to be as autonomous and independent as possible. At the time of the inspection there were six people receiving a service. The service is situated in a residential area on the outskirts of Brighton with access to local amenities, transport links in to the city centre.
The service had a registered manager, who was present throughout the inspection, who has been in their current post for a number of years and knew the service well. 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.
The service was going through a significant period of review, where the provider and local stakeholders were looking at the service provision and what was needed and how the service would best be provided in the future.
Care staff were supported to develop their skills and knowledge by receiving training which helped them to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively. Care staff had been able to attend refresher training to meet the provider’s requirements, plans were in place to promote good practice and develop the knowledge and skills of staff. However, care staff had not all received regular supervision. This is an area in need of improvement.
Relatives told us people were safe in the service. People were supported by staff that were trained in safeguarding adults at risk procedures and knew how to recognise signs of abuse. There were systems in place that ensured this knowledge was checked and updated. Medicines were managed and administered safely. Accidents and incidents had been recorded and appropriate action had been taken and recorded by the registered manager.
Care and support provided was personalised and based on the identified needs of each individual. People were supported where possible to develop their life skills and increase their independence. People’s care and support plans and risk assessments were up-to-date, were detailed and reviewed regularly.
Consent was sought from people with regard to the care that was delivered. Staff understood about people’s capacity to consent to care and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated legislation, which they put into practice. Where people were unable to make decisions for themselves staff had considered the person’s capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and had taken appropriate action to arrange meetings to make a decision within their best interests.
People were supported to eat a healthy and nutritious diet. People had access to health care professionals. They had been supported to have an annual healthcare check. All appointments with, or visits by, health care professionals were recorded in individual care plans.
People were supported by kind caring staff. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to keep people safe and meet their care and support needs. The number of staff on duty had enabled people to be supported to attend social activities. One relative told us, “She is happy there and that’s what it is all about. She gets on well with all the staff. There is a good banter between them.”
Staff told us that communication throughout the service was good and included comprehensive handovers at the beginning of each shift and through staff meetings. They confirmed that they felt valued and supported by the registered manager and senior care officer, who they described as very approachable.
Relatives, staff told us the service was well led. One relative told us, “(Registered managers name) and her team are brilliant here. If there is a problem we sit down and work it out. “People and their representatives were asked to complete a satisfaction questionnaire to help identify any improvements to the care provided. People had the opportunity to attend regular weekly ‘tenants' meetings’. The registered manager told us that staff carried out a range of internal audits to review the quality of the care provided, and records confirmed this. The registered manager also told us that they operated an 'open door policy' so people living in the service, staff and visitors could discuss any issues they may have.