Aachen Brook St Anne's Community Services

We found the following examples of good practice.

The service was spacious, clean and well ventilated. Cleaning schedules had been enhanced to include frequent cleaning of touch points such as door handles.

Staff wore PPE appropriately and there were ample supplies available. Staff had completed infection prevention and control training including interactive training in the correct use of PPE.

People using the service and all staff were tested regularly and procedures were in place for the event of a positive test result.

Admission procedures included lateral flow testing.

The provider had effective systems in place to ensure staff were kept informed of the latest government guidance.

The provider was arranging internal visits in accordance with government guidance.

Aachen Brook St Anne’s Community Services is a nursing respite service and can provide respite for up to six adults with a learning disability and or physical disability. At the time of the inspection one person was using the service and eighteen people had respite care agreed but were not currently residing at the service.

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 received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The leadership and team working within the service was excellent. This ensured everyone received high quality and personalised support. The staff team worked in partnership to continuously improve the service and this achieved good outcomes for people. Everyone without exception, praised the leadership and the person-centred approach to care.

There were excellent relationships with people’s relatives where a whole family approach ensured that the care provided was flexible and tailored to meet the needs of people’s lives. Relatives told us the service went the extra mile to achieve this and was a 'home from home'.

Staff empowered people to live fulfilling lives. Staff kept people safe with the minimum restrictions necessary. Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and positive risk-taking promoted people’s independence.

The staff were strong advocates for people and endeavoured to access the best possible support available. This meant people received timely care and support from health professionals and other agencies, which had a positive impact on their lives.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect. Staff treated people as individuals and used a strengths-based approach which focused on people’s abilities and promoted their independence. The service followed best practice guidance to ensure a high level of care provision.

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.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence. The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

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 (published 20 July 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Aachen Brook provides residential and respite care for up to six people with physical and learning disabilities. Nursing care is provided.

At the time of this inspection there were two people residing at the home and three people receiving respite care. A fourth person arrived for a period of respite care on the day of our visit.

The service had a registered manager. 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 told us they felt safe and could speak to any of the staff if they were worried about anything. The manager understood their responsibilities for safeguarding people and staff were trained to understand and recognise abuse. They knew who to report concerns about people’s safety and welfare within the organisation and to external agencies if necessary.

Sufficient numbers of staff were deployed to provide people with the care and support they needed. The required checks were done before new staff started work and this helped to keep people safe. Staff were provided with training and support to enable them carry out their roles.

Systems were in place to make sure medicines were managed safely.

People who used the service and their relatives told us staff were helpful, kind, attentive and caring. We saw people were treated with respect and compassion. They also told us they felt safe with the care they were provided with. We found there were appropriate systems in place to protect people from risk of harm.

Risks to people’s safety and welfare were identified and managed. Risk assessments clearly identified the risks to people and what could be done to mitigate the risks and keep them safe whilst promoting independence. Staff were provided with information about how to deal with emergencies .

Meals were prepared and cooked by staff with the involvement of the people who lived there as they wished. We saw people’s nutritional needs and preferences were taken into account.

We found the service was working in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and this helped to make sure people’s rights were protected. When there was any doubt about a person’s capacity to understand a particular decision the correct process was followed to make sure any actions taken were in their best interests.

‘Health Action Plans’ were in place to help support people to lead a healthy lifestyle. These included information about health care professionals involved in supporting people and details of how people were able to communicate health care issues and emotions. The service worked with other health and social care professionals to help achieve positive outcomes for people.

People told us staff respected their privacy and dignity and provided them with the support they needed. Staff demonstrated a caring attitude and we saw the interactions between staff and people who used the service were friendly and warm. People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends and take part in a range of social activities of their choosing.

People were involved in decisions about all aspects of their care and support.

The care documentation supported a person centred approach and contained all the detail staff would need to make sure people were supported safely and in the way they preferred.

There was a complaints procedure and people were informed of what they should do if they were unhappy. The people we spoke with said they had no reason to complain but would not hesitate to speak with one of the staff or the registered manager if they had any concerns.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the services provided.