11 June 2015
During a routine inspection
We inspected Featherbed Lane on 11 June 2015. This was an announced inspection. We informed the registered provider at short notice (the day before) that we would be visiting to inspect. We did this because the location is a small care home for people who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.
Featherbed Lane is a purpose built bungalow that provides a care home for up to six people with a learning disability, some of whom may have physical disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were five people who used the service.
The service has 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.
People were protected by the services approach to safeguarding and whistle blowing. People who used the service told us they felt safe and could tell staff if they were unhappy. People who used the service told us that staff treated them well and they were happy with the care and service received. Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures, could describe what they would do if they thought somebody was being mistreated and said that management acted appropriately to any concerns brought to their attention.
Staff told us that they felt supported. There was a regular programme of staff supervision and appraisal in place. Records of supervision were detailed and showed that the registered manager had worked with staff to identify their personal and professional development.
Staff had been trained and had the skills and knowledge to provide support to the people they cared for. Where there were gaps in training this had been identified by the registered manager and booked. There was enough staff on duty to provide support and ensure that their needs were met.
The registered manager demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) however, some staff had limited understanding. After the inspection the registered manager booked MCA training for staff. Appropriate documentation was available within people’s care records. This included capacity assessments, DoLS authorisations and best interest decisions.
We found that safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. This included obtaining references from previous employers to show staff employed were safe to work with vulnerable people.
Appropriate systems were in place for the management of medicines so that people received their medicines safely.
People who used the service and relatives we spoke with told us that staff were caring and treated people well, respected their privacy and encouraged their independence. Our observations showed staff and people who used the service were comfortable together and interacting in a friendly and caring way.
People’s needs were assessed and their care needs planned in a person centred way. We saw that risks identified with care and support had been identified and included within the care and support plans.
People’s nutritional needs were met, with people being involved in shopping and decisions about meals. People who used the service told us that they got enough to eat and drink and that staff asked what people wanted. However nutritional assessments had not been completed on a regular basis.
People were supported to maintain their health, including access to specialist health and social care practitioners when needed. People who used the service had regular appointments with the community nursing team and social care professionals. Other professionals were also involved in people’s care such as chiropodists, opticians, nurses, GPs, speech and language therapists and dentists.
People’s independence was encouraged and their hobbies and leisure interests were individually assessed. There was a plentiful supply of activities both in and out of the home for people to take part in. Staff encouraged and supported people to access activities within the community. People had holidays.
The registered provider had a system in place for responding to people’s concerns and complaints. People and relatives told us they knew how to complain and felt confident that staff would respond and take action to support them. People and relatives we spoke with did not raise any complaints or concerns about the service.
There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Staff told us that the service had an open, inclusive and positive culture.