You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 December 2018

Imber House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Imber is registered to provide personal care to a maximum of six people with a learning disability. At the time of inspection there were six people using the service.

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 was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS.) 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 and their relatives told us they felt safe living in the service and that staff made them feel safe. Risks to people were appropriately planned for and managed. Medicines were stored, managed and administered safely.

Checks were carried out to ensure that the environment and equipment remained safe. The service was clean and measures were in place to limit the risk of and spread of infection.

People and their relatives told us there were enough suitably knowledgeable staff to provide people with the care they required. Staff had received appropriate training and support to carry out their role effectively.

People received appropriate support to maintain healthy nutrition and hydration. They were supported to participate in preparing their meals according to their abilities.

People told us staff were nice to them. Relatives told us staff respected their family member’s right to privacy and that staff supported people to remain independent. Our observations supported this.

People and their relatives were encouraged to feed back on the service in a number of different ways and participate in meetings to shape the future of the service. People and their relatives told us they knew how to complain.

People received personalised care that met their individual needs and preferences. People and their relatives were actively involved in the planning of their care. People were supported to access meaningful activities and follow their individual interests.

The provider created a culture of openness and transparency within the service. Staff told us that the provider was visible in the service and led by example. Our observations supported this.

There was a robust quality assurance system in place and shortfalls identified were promptly acted on to improve the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 December 2018

The service was safe.

Risks to people were identified, monitored and managed.

Medicines were managed and administered safely.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

The premises were safe and clean.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 December 2018

The service was effective.

The service was complying with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts.

Staff had the training and support to deliver effective care to people.

People were supported to have contact with external health professionals such as doctors.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 December 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and caring towards people.

People were supported to be involved in the process of their care planning.

People were enabled and encouraged to be independent.

Staff upheld people’s dignity and right to privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 December 2018

The service was responsive.

People were supported to engage in meaningful activity inside and outside of the service.

People received personalised care.

People and their relatives were made aware of how they could complain.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 December 2018

The service was well-led.

The provider had a robust and effective quality assurance system in place capable of identifying areas for improvement.

People, their relatives, external professionals, and staff were given opportunities to feedback on the service.

The provider was visible and led by example. They engaged with other organisations to keep up to date with best practice.