You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 October 2017

This inspection took place on 21 September 2017 and was announced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. This was the first inspection of the service since they registered this location with the CQC in 2016. They were formally known and operated as Peculiar Care Homes Limited -

F32 Waterfront Studios.

Peculiar Care service – Studio 24 provides personal care and support to younger adults in their own homes. People using the service have complex needs including learning disabilities and autism. The care and support people received ranged from short visits to 24 hour care with some people having two-to-one support depending on needs and requirements. At the time of our inspection 19 people were receiving personal care service.

There is a Registered Manager at this location. 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 kept safe by staff that had a thorough knowledge and understanding of their responsibilities to protect people from harm or abuse. They knew the signs to recognise abuse and the procedure to report any concerns. They also knew how to escalate their concerns to external agencies should it not be addressed internally.

People’s needs were met and they were cared for by sufficient numbers of staff. Risks to people were identified and actions put in place to ensure risk were minimised and people kept safe. People received their medicines as prescribed and the management of medicines was safe.

Staff understood their responsibilities with regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were supported through an induction, supervision, appraisal and training to provide an effective service to people. Staff we spoke with understood their roles and responsibilities and demonstrated knowledge and skills in the job. People were supported to eat and drink appropriately and to meet their dietary and nutritional requirements. Staff supported people to access health and social care services they required.

People and relatives told us staff treated them with kindness and said their privacy and dignity was always respected. People had choice about how they wanted their day-to-day care delivered and staff respected their decisions. Staff knew people well and supported them in line with their individual needs and requirements.

People’s care and support was planned, documented and delivered in a person-centre way. It reflected their choices, preferences, personalities, needs and individuality. People received support from staff to meet their needs and achieve their goals. People were supported to engage in the activities that they enjoyed. People were supported to socialise, learn new skills, and maintain relationship with family. People and their relatives knew how to complain about the service should they need to.

Relative and staff spoke positively about how the service was run and managed. They told us the service was well run and management support was accessible. People, and their family members and were actively encouraged to provide feedback about the service through surveys. These were used to improve the service delivered.

There was a range of systems used to check the quality of service delivered. Regular spot checks and audits were carried out to identify any shortfalls in the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 October 2017

The service was safe.

The service had robust systems in place to recognise and respond to allegations of abuse. Staff knew how to report concerns appropriately.

Risks to people were assessed and management plans developed to minimise identified risks.

People received support with their medicines and records showed medicines were managed in a safe way.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of people using the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 October 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received the training they required to help them carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively.

The Registered Manager and staff understood and met the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People consented to the support they received.

People were supported to meet their nutritional and hydration needs.

People had access to healthcare services as they needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 October 2017

The service was caring.

People felt that staff treated them with kindness and respect.

Staff knew people well and how to work with them. Staff had developed positive working relationship with people. People received consistent care from regular support staff.

People�s privacy and dignity was respected and staff were aware of the importance of doing so.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 October 2017

The service was responsive.

People�s care and support was planned and delivered in a way that took into account their individual needs, preferences, personalities and choices.

People were supported to participate in the activities they enjoyed and to maintain an active life. Staff supported people in a way that promoted their independence.

People knew how to make a complaint if required and had confidence that any complaints would be acted upon by the management team.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 October 2017

The service was well led.

Relatives and staff told us the service was well run and managed. The registered manager and members of the management team were open and approachable.

The management promoted strong values and commitment which were embedded in the service and demonstrated by staff.

There were processes in place to monitor quality and understand the experiences of people who used the service and improvements were made when identified.