You are here

Archived: Serlby Close Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 26 January 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 26 January 2016. The inspection was announced to ensure people who used the service would be present.

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 o

Inspection carried out on 12 March 2014

During a routine inspection

We have not been able to speak to all of the people using the service because some of the people had complex needs, which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. However, people were seen to be relaxed and comfortable with staff.

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

Inspection carried out on 16 August 2013

During a routine inspection

Some people were not able to tell us directly what they thought about the service. However, during our visit we spent time observing how care staff supported people and this was positive and respectful.

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.

Inspection carried out on 29 May 2012

During a routine inspection

People living at Serlby Close were unable to tell us what they thought about the care they received. During our visit, all interactions we observed between the staff and the people living at the home were open, respectful and courteous.

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

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

We did not meet with any visitors or visiting professionals during our visit.