You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at Fell Close. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 March 2017

This inspection took place on 16 February 2017 and was announced.

At our last inspection on 24 November 2014 we rated the service ‘Good’. We found the service remained 'Good' at this inspection.

Fell close is registered to provide long-term accommodation to four adults who have a learning disability and/or a physical disability. The service is situated in Newby, on the outskirts of Scarborough. There is limited car parking available to the front of the service and disabled access into the building. People have access to a garden area to the rear of the building and a selection of communal spaces within the service. These included a dining area and a lounge. Both floors of the service have communal bathrooms and toilet facilities. The bedrooms are all single occupancy. At the time of this inspection, four people were using the service.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager, but at the time of our inspection the manager in post was not registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). For this report, we have referred to this person as ‘the manager’ throughout the text. 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.

We found that the care staff had a good knowledge of how to keep people safe from harm and the staff had been employed following robust recruitment and selection processes. We found that the management of medication was safely carried out.

People had their health and social care needs assessed and plans of care were developed to guide staff in how to support people. The plans of care were individualised to include preferences, likes and dislikes. People who used the service received additional care and treatment from health professionals based in the community. People had risk assessments in their care files to help minimise risks whilst still supporting people to make choices and decisions.

People that used the service were cared for and supported by qualified and competent staff that were regularly supervised. 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.

People received adequate nutrition and hydration to maintain their levels of health and wellbeing. People had been included in planning menus and their feedback about the meals in the service had been listened to and acted on.

People were able to see their families when they wanted to. There were no restrictions on when people could visit the service. We saw that staff were caring and people were happy with the care they received. People had access to community facilities and most participated in the activities provided in the service.

We observed good interactions between people who lived in the service and staff on the day of the inspection. We found that people received compassionate care from kind staff and that staff knew about people’s needs and preferences. People were supplied with the information they needed at the right time, were involved in all aspects of their care and were always asked for their consent before staff undertook support tasks.

People’s comments and niggles/grumbles were responded to appropriately and there were systems in place to seek feedback from people and their relatives about the service provided. We saw that the manager met with people on a regular basis to discuss their care and any concerns they might have. This meant people were consulted about their care and treatment and were able to make their own choices and decisions.

People’s wellbeing, privacy, dignity and independence were monitored and respected and staff worked to maintain these wherever p

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 March 2017

The service remains good.

There were processes in place to help make sure people were protected from the risk of abuse and staff were aware of safeguarding vulnerable adults procedures.

Assessments were undertaken of risks to people who used the service and staff. Written plans were in place to manage these risks. There were processes for recording accidents and incidents.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs and medicines were managed safely so that people received them as prescribed by their doctor.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 March 2017

The service remains good.

Staff received relevant training and supervision to enable them to feel confident in providing effective care for people. Staff were aware and worked within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People had a choice of quality food. We saw people were provided with appropriate assistance and support and staff understood people’s nutritional needs.

People received appropriate health-care support from specialists and health-care professionals where needed.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the service to be meeting the requirements of DoLS.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 March 2017

The service remains good.

The people who used the service had a good relationship with the staff who showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting individuals with their daily routines.

We saw that people’s privacy and dignity was respected by the staff.

People who used the service were included in making decisions about their care whenever this was possible and we saw that they were consulted about their day to day needs.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 March 2017

The service remains good.

Care plans were in place outlining people’s care and support needs. The staff were knowledgeable about each person’s support needs, their interests and preferences and this enabled them to provide a personalised service.

Staff supported people to maintain their independence and to build their confidence in all areas.

People who used the service were able to make suggestions and raise concerns or complaints about the service they received.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 March 2017

The service remains good.

The service was without a registered manager. However, a registered manager’s application was sent to CQC immediately following this inspection.

People were at the heart of the service and staff continually strived to improve. Staff were supported by the manager. There was open communication within the staff team and staff felt comfortable discussing any concerns with the manager.

The manager and registered provider carried out a variety of quality audits to monitor that the systems in place at the home were being followed by staff and to ensure the safety and well-being of people who lived and worked there.