You are here

Archived: Serlby Close Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 8 July 2017

We inspected Serlby Close on 8 and 13 June 2017. The inspection was unannounced, this meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming.

Serlby Close provides accommodation for up to eight people who require personal care. The service accommodates adults over the age of 18 with learning disabilities. The service is purpose built over two floors and has a range of communal areas for people to use, including an enclosed garden for people and their relatives. There were eight people using the service at the time of the inspection.

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 a safe recruitment procedure in place. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to support people with their assessed needs. Risks to people were assessed and plans put in place to mitigate any identified risks. Policies and procedures were in place for the safe management of medicines. Staff who were responsible for managing medicines had their competency to do so checked regularly.

Staff were supervised in their roles and received an annual appraisal to aide their personal development. The provider had a training matrix in place to ensure staff were trained and skilled to meet the needs of the people using the service. People were provided with a healthy diet to meet their nutritional needs.

The Commission has responsibility to assess the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We found people were being supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. DoLS authorisations were in place for people and staff supported people to make as many of their own decisions as possible. The provider had policies and procedures in place for staff guidance in the application of the MCA.

People were supported by kind and caring staff. Staff were respectful and treated people with dignity. Staff discussed their actions with people before providing support and gained consent before they carried out any interventions. Staff knew people well and were knowledgeable about their likes, dislikes and preferences. Pictorial information was available for people to meet their communication needs. Staff used a range of methods to communicate with people.

People were supported to maintain their health and well-being and had access to healthcare professionals when necessary.

Care plans were personalised and reviewed and evaluated regularly to ensure support was up to date. People were involved in planning their support.

Staff supported people to access the local community for a range of activities. People were supported to take part in hobbies and interests both in the home and the community. People were supported to go on holidays and spend time with their families during overnight and weekend stays.

The provider had a quality assurance system in place. Meetings with people and staff were held regularly. The provider had policies and procedures in place to manage complaints.

Serlby Close was spacious, clean and well-maintained. People had access to communal areas with a range of seating.

Relevant checks of the building and maintenance systems were completed to ensure the safety of the premises. Environmental risks were assessed and guidance was available for staff to mitigate risks. People had Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) in place for staff to use in case of an emergency.

Inspection areas



Updated 8 July 2017

The service was safe.

The provider had a robust recruitment procedure in place which contained relevant checks to ensure appropriately vetted staff were employed to work at the service.

Where people were assessed as being at risk, plans were in place to mitigate against risks. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly. Staff had access to plans in order to keep people safe. The provider had a system in place to manage accident and incidents.

The provider had a safe management of medicine process in place. Staff were trained in the safe handling of medicines and had their competency to administer medicines checked regularly.

The provider had policies and procedures in place for safeguarding and whistleblowing. Staff knew how to raise concerns and felt confident the registered manager would respond.



Updated 8 July 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were given the training required to support people who used the service. Staff received regular supervision and an annual appraisal to provide opportunities for learning and development.

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards (DoLS). People�s rights were upheld and protected by the service.

People were supported to access health care professionals when necessary.



Updated 8 July 2017

The service was caring.

Staff knew people well and they enjoyed genuine caring relationships with them. People were treated with respect in a dignified way by staff that supported their independence.

The service had information regarding advocacy which was available to people, relatives and visitors.

People�s rooms were personalised and contained items that were important to them.



Updated 8 July 2017

The service was responsive.

People�s care plans were personalised and contained information about likes, dislikes and preferences. People and relatives felt involved in care planning and were invited to reviews on a regular basis. Care plans were updated whenever there was a change in people�s support.

People, relatives and visitors had opportunities to complain, give comments or raise issues. The provider used a pictorial document for people who had communication needs.

People were included in planning regular activities to maintain their hobbies and interests and to access the community.



Updated 8 July 2017

The service was well led.

There were systems and processes in place to monitor the quality of the service. The provider completed a service review to ensure a senior management overview was in place.

People and relatives felt the service was well managed with a supportive registered manager and team. The registered manager was described as open and approachable.

Opportunities were available for people, relatives and staff to meet. Meetings were held on a regular basis.