Archived: Serlby Close

Serlby Close is an eight bedroomed, purpose built detached property located in Washington. The service provides accommodation and care for up to eight people who have learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders. At the time of the visit eight people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 people who lived at Serlby Close had complex needs which meant they were unable to tell us about their experience of the service. We spoke to relatives of people who lived at the home to gain their views. Relatives we spoke with expressed positive comments about the service their relatives received and praised the work of the manager and staff.

Relatives and staff we spoke with told us that there were enough staff on duty. During our inspection we observed sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Where risks were identified they were assessed and managed to minimise the risk to people who used the service and others.

Staff were able to describe the signs of potential abuse. Staff we spoke to had a clear understanding of what actions to take if they had concerns about a person’s safety or treatment.

The provider had a robust recruitment procedure in place which included ensuring appropriate checks were undertaken before staff started work.

Medicines records we viewed were up to date and accurate. This included records for the receipt, return, administration and disposal of medicines.

The provider carried out regular health and safety checks included checks of gas safety, electrical safety, electrical appliances, fire safety and water safety.

Staff understood and applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), and were aware of people’s rights when they could not consent themselves. We saw staff support people to make choices and decisions.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. We saw that each individual’s preference was catered for and people were supported to manage their weight.

Staff had completed mandatory training required to perform their role. We noted all training was up to date as were supervisions and appraisals.

The provider had a personal emergency evacuation procedure in place which detailed action to be taken in the event of an emergency.

The service worked with external professionals to support and maintain people’s health. We saw evidence in care plans of cooperation between care staff and healthcare professionals including, occupational therapists, podiatrists and GPs.

People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff had a sound knowledge of the people they supported. We saw staff were caring and compassionate when supporting people.

Staff were aware of a person’s preferred method of communication.

People were involved in a wide range of activities including bowling, ice-skating, going to the pub and shopping. Staff supported people to maintain family relationships and links with the local community.

Where people had no family or personal representative we saw the service assisted people to obtain support from an advocacy service.

Care plans were detailed and reflected people’s individual needs. Reviews were regularly completed and included input from the person and their family.

We observed staff were supportive of each other. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home and they felt supported by the manager and registered manager.

The manager had a comprehensive system to audit various aspects of the running of the service. These included checks of the medication systems, audits of care plans and people’s funds.

Feedback was sought from people, relatives and staff in order to monitor and improve standards. We saw team meetings were held monthly to discuss issues within the service.

Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

We saw that staff provided whatever was needed in a way that demonstrated a good knowledge of each individual person. Where appropriate, we saw staff providing support and encouragement to enable people to do things as independently as possible.

We found the provider did not have a system of formally recording consent within peoples care plans.

We observed people being spoken with and supported in a sensitive, respectful and professional manner. We saw that staff included people in the day to day running of the care home. Whenever possible, it was the people living at the home that made decisions on what happened through the day and when.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. They also had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service.

We found people who use the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.