• Care Home
  • Care home

78 Polwell Lane

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Barton Seagrave, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6UB (01536) 722609

Provided and run by:
Consensus Support Services Limited

All Inspections

4 August 2022

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about 78 Polwell Lane on 4 August 2022. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about 78 Polwell Lane, you can give feedback on this service.

8 January 2018

During a routine inspection

78 Polwell Lane is registered to accommodate five people with learning disabilities; at the time of our inspection, there were five people living in the home. The 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.

This inspection took place on the 8 and 9 January 2018 and was unannounced. We had previously inspected this service in November 2015, at that inspection the service was rated ‘Good’. We found that at this inspection the service had remained ‘Good’ but that there were areas where we saw continued improvement which we have rated as ‘Outstanding.’

The was 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.

The service was committed to providing good care, which put people at the heart of everything. The registered manager led and inspired the staff to deliver person-centred care, which had achieved consistently good outcomes for people.

There was a very effective system of quality assurance led by the provider and registered manager that ensured people consistently received good care and support. People receiving care from 78 Polwell Lane had an enhanced sense of well-being and quality of life because staff worked innovatively to enable people to have meaningful experiences and to become active members of the local community.

Staff continuously ensured that people lived as fulfilled and enriched lives as possible. They respected people’s individuality and enabled people to express their wishes and make choices for themselves. Positive therapeutic relationships had been developed and staff were proud of the support that they had provided to people and the positive outcomes they had observed.

People's health and well-being was monitored by staff and they were supported to access health professionals in a timely manner when they needed to. People were supported to have sufficient amounts to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet. People experienced caring relationships with staff and good interaction was evident.

Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people and knew how to respond if they had any concerns. Care plans contained risk assessments, which gave detailed instructions to staff as to how to mitigate risks; these enabled and empowered people to live as independent a life as possible safely.

Staff knew their responsibilities as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005). The provider was aware of how to make referrals if people lacked capacity to consent to aspects of their care and support and were being deprived of their liberty. People were supported to use communication aids and information was provided to people in an accessible format to enable them to make decisions about their care and support.

Staff demonstrated the provider's values of offering person centred care that respected people as individuals in all of their interactions with people. People’s relatives and the professionals involved in people's care consistently told us that the service provided good care to people.

People could be assured that they would be supported by sufficient numbers of staff. Records showed that people received their care in the way they needed to maintain their safety.

24 November 2015

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 24 November 2015. The service provides support for up to five people with learning and physical difficulties. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the home.

There was 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.

Relatives said that they had no concerns about their family member’s safety. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and abuse and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns.

Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required at the times they needed it. The recruitment practices were thorough and protected people from being cared for by staff that were unsuitable to work at the service.

Care records contained individual risk assessments to protect people from identified risks and help keep them safe. They provided information to staff about action to be taken to minimise any risks whilst allowing people to be as independent as possible.

Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and where possible people were involved in making decisions about their support. People participated in a range of planned activities both in the house and in the community and received the support they needed to help them to do this.

Records showed that medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of safely. People were supported to maintain good health as staff had the knowledge and skills to support them and there was prompt and reliable access to healthcare services when needed.

People’s relatives were actively involved in decision about people’s care and support needs There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff had good relationships with the people who lived at the home. Staff were aware of the importance of managing complaints promptly and in line with the provider’s policy. Staff and people living in the house were confident that issues would be addressed and that any concerns they had would be listened to.

The registered manager was visible and accessible and staff and people’s relatives had confidence in the way the service was run.

30 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This was largely a positive inspection. We found that the essential standard with regard to premises had been met. Fire testing was seen as being fully in place. This protected people from fire risks. The manager stated the redecoration of the hallway would be completed within a week of the inspection date.

6 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We were accompanied on this visit an expert by experience, who has personal experience of health and/or social care services. We take an expert by experience to help us understand the experience of people there.

The expert by experience spoke with three people: 'Due to the complex needs '.and limited communication my report has focussed on my observations and talking to staff members'. She stated that staff had a good understanding of specific approaches with individuals.

We obtained the views of three relatives of people and a person's supporter. They told us that the care that staff provided was very good or generally good. One relative said: 'I would give it a five star rating'.

This was largely a positive inspection. People said that they were satisfied, or largely satisfied, with the care they received. We observed this mainly to be the case. Relatives said care was good or generally good. One relative had concerns that her relative had not seen a GP when needed.

There were some suggestions: more day care for people to provide more stimulation. Making referrals to medical services when needed. Reducing high staff turnover to improve continuity of care and fully meeting the needs of people. Staff to always treat people with respect by asking people and saying please, rather than being directive. And to address people by their name, rather than using endearments such as 'darling'. This will avoid a picture of people being treated as children.

12 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with one person living in the home at the time of the inspection. Due to communication difficulties, we were not able to speak with other people. The person we spoke to confirmed that he was happy living in the home, and satisfied with the care that he received.

We spoke with four relatives and a visiting professional. They all told us that the care that staff provided was very good. One relative said: 'Staff are doing a brilliant job'. Another relative said: 'The care is 100%. My son is happy and contented. They involve me in his care plan and always check with me if they are not sure about anything. I can't praise the manager and staff enough'.

This was a positive inspection. The person we spoke with living in the home were satisfied with his care. People's relatives praised the service. The visiting professional had no concerns about the care of her client. There were a small number of suggestions; to have a sensory room to provide stimulation for people, and for the company to improve conditions. The manager said that a sensory facility for people would be provided this year.