You are here

Nimrod House Registered Care Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 March 2018

The inspection took place on 21 February 2018 and was an unannounced inspection. This was the first inspection of Nimrod House Registered care since its registration on 11 April 2016.

Nimrod House Registered Care is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to three adults with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorder. Nimrod House Registered Care is a building containing five one bedroom flats. The provider has two registered locations at the address. Up to three of the flats can be used to provide registered care, and the remaining are supported living flats for adults with learning disabilities. This inspection related only to the registered care aspects of the service. At the time of our inspection two people were living at the service. People using the service lived in one bedroom flats with a living room, kitchen, bedroom and a bathroom. They shared garden space with other people using the service.

Nimrod House Registered Care is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values 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.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 provider had systems to ensure people were safeguarded against avoidable harm. A person and a relative told us staff were trustworthy and they felt safe with them. Staff knew how to identify and report abuse and poor care. Risks to people were identified, assessed and mitigated. People’s risk assessments were regularly reviewed and provided guidance to staff on how to support people safely. Staff were appropriately recruited and vetted before they started working with people. There were enough staff in place to meet people’s individual needs. People’s medicines needs were met safely. The provider met infection control requirements and there was no malodour in the flats we visited. The registered manager learnt lessons from complaints, safeguarding and accidents and incidents, and shared the learning with the staff team via staff meetings.

Staff received comprehensive induction, regular training and supervision to provide effective care. People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met. Staff assisted people in accessing ongoing healthcare support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff gave people choices and understood the importance of seeking permission before providing care.

Staff were trained in equality and diversity, and people told us staff treated them with dignity and respect. People were supported with their cultural and religious needs. People’s care plans gave information on their likes, dislikes and cultural and religious preferences.

The provider maintained clear complaints processes and encouraged people and their relatives to raise concerns. The provider’s end of life policy informed staff on how to support people with their end of life care wishes.

People, their relatives and staff told us they found the registered manager approachable. Staff told us they felt well supported by the registered manager. The provider involved people,

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 March 2018

The service was safe.

A person and a relative told us they felt safe with staff. The provider followed appropriate procedures to safeguard people against harm and abuse. Risks to people were identified and mitigated to ensure people were safe in their flats and in the community.

People received medicines on time. Staff were appropriately checked before they started working with people. The provider followed safe infection control practices.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 March 2018

The service was effective.

People�s needs were appropriately assessed. They told us staff looked after them well. Staff received regular training and supervision to meet people�s individual needs.

Staff asked people�s consent before providing care and encouraged them to make decisions. People�s nutrition and hydration needs were met and they were assisted to receive ongoing healthcare support.

People liked their flats and the provider used assistive technology to deliver effective care.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 March 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff were trained in equality and diversity. People�s cultural and religious needs were recorded in their care plans and staff supported them in meeting those needs.

Staff supported people to learn daily living skills and remain as independent as they could.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 March 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care support from staff who knew people�s likes and dislikes. People�s care and health action plans were person-centred and regularly reviewed. The provider had developed a �hospital passport� which provided important information about people�s healthcare needs.

The provider encouraged people and their relatives to raise concerns and complaints, and maintained accurate records of complaints. There was an end of life policy in place that informed staff on how to support people with their end of life care choices.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 March 2018

The service was well-led.

People, relatives and staff found the registered manager approachable. The provider carried out regular checks and audits to ensure people received a quality service.

The provider consulted with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals to improve the service.