Archived: Royal Mencap Society - Broad Oaks Also known as Broad Oaks

Royal Mencap Society Broad Oaks provides accommodation, care and support for up to 17 people who experience learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. There were 15 people living at home at the time of the inspection.

The service worked within the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensured that people could 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’s experience of using this service:

At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

People continued to be kept as safe as possible because staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to keeping people safe from harm and abuse. Potential risks to people had been recognised and information on how to minimise risks had been recorded as guidance for staff to follow. People received their prescribed medicines, which were managed safely. There were enough staff on duty with the right mix of skills to meet people’s support needs.

People continued to receive an effective service because their needs were met by staff who were well trained and supported to do their job. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the home support this practice. People's nutritional needs were met by staff who knew each person's needs well. People’s health and wellbeing was maintained and they had access to a range of health and social care professionals.

People continued to receive good care because staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People had choices in all aspects of their daily lives and could continue with interests, activities and friendships outside the home. Staff ensured people remained as independent as possible.

People continued to receive a service that was responsive. People and their relatives (where agreed) were involved in their personalised support plans and reviews. The information about them in relation to their care and support was up to date. People were encouraged to take part in a range of activities that they enjoyed and were the choice of the person at that time. This helped promote social inclusion.

People continued to receive a service that was well led. Quality assurance systems were used to check that the staff provided quality care and the managers made improvements where necessary. People were encouraged to share their views about the quality of the care provided.

Rating at last inspection:

Good. The last inspection report was published on 24 June 2016.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned comprehensive inspection that was scheduled to take place in line with Care Quality Commission (CQC) scheduling guidelines for adult social care services.

Follow up:

We will review the service in line with our methodology for 'Good' services.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection and had been registered since 2015. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the home. 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 were kept safe and staff were knowledgeable about reporting any incident of harm. People were looked after by enough staff to support them with their individual needs. Pre-employment checks were completed on staff before they were assessed to be suitable to look after people who used the service. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and drink. They were also supported to access health care services and their individual health needs were met.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA 2005] and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] and to report on what we find. The provider was aware of what they were required to do should any person lack mental capacity. Staff had an awareness of the application of the MCA and people’s mental capacity was assessed. DoLS applications had been made to the appropriate authorities and the outcome of their review of the applications was yet to be received.

People were looked after by staff who were trained and supported to do their job to meet people’s individual needs.

People were treated by kind and respectful staff who they liked. People and their relatives were provided with opportunities to be involved in the review of people’s individual care plans.

People’s individual needs were met. People were supported to reduce the risk of social isolation; they were helped to go shopping or take part in recreational activities that were important to them. Care was provided based on people’s individual needs. There was a process in place so that people’s concerns and complaints were listened to and these were acted upon.

The registered manager was supported by a team of management staff and care staff and staff were supported by a management team. Staff were managed to look after people in a safe way. Staff, people and their relatives were able to make suggestions and actions were taken as a result. Quality monitoring procedures were in place and action was taken where improvements were identified.

People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing. This included support to access health care professionals; to engage in social activities of their choosing and to maintain and develop a level of independence with a variety of tasks.

People told us that they liked their own room and living accommodation. The home was reasonably maintained and a safe place for people to live, work and visit.

There was a sufficient number of staff employed to meet people's individual support and care needs. Teams of staff were arranged so that people who used the service received their support and care in a consistent way.

People were provided with opportunities to make their concerns or complaints known and had no reservation in doing so, if needed.