Archived: 49 Fellowes Way

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found during our inspection of 49 Fellowes Way on 25 May 2014. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with people who used the service, the staff supporting them and looking at records.

Is the service safe?

People's needs had been assessed individually and were reviewed regularly by staff. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people's individual requirements and how to support those needs.

Health and safety audits were carried out by the manager on a regular basis as part of a system for monitoring people's safety.

Where people had suffered an accident or been involved in an incident, the manager had reviewed these and implemented appropriate measures where necessary.

Is the service effective?

Staff promoted people's independence and ability to make choices as much as possible. Members of staff described a person-centred approach to care and demonstrated a good working knowledge of the contents of people's support plans.

Is the service caring?

We observed that people were treated in a dignified and courteous manner by the staff. Staff we spoke with were aware of people's individual needs and responded accordingly. Where possible, people were supported to live as independently as possible.

Is the service responsive?

We saw from records we looked at that the manager investigated incidents appropriately and implemented measures to reduce the risk of any re-occurrence. Where necessary they informed the Care Quality Commission and local authority, and worked pro-actively to manage any incidents.

Where there had been changes identified for people's support needs, the manager ensured that people's care records were updated to reflect these changes. These were reviewed and monitored regularly by staff and the manager.

Staff worked pro-actively towards resettling people in the community as soon as practicable. We saw that one person had recently been successfully resettled as a result of their changing support requirements.

Records required to be kept to protect people's safety and well- being were maintained and updated as required. These included, fire safety, Portable Appliance Testing (PAT) and records relating to the maintenance of the premises and gas equipment were appropriately maintained and kept securely. This demonstrated that records were kept securely and could be located promptly when needed.

Is the service well-led?

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. Members of staff were invited to attend meetings where they could raise any concerns and their feedback was listened to.

The views of people who used the service, and relatives, had been sought, and where appropriate the manager had implemented appropriate changes.

The manager carried out a range of audits to ensure that the service was effective and an action plan was developed from these. The operations manager visited the service frequently and carried out a series of checks to ensure that the quality of care was maintained and any actions from the audits were remedied.

We noted that a complaints policy was available to both visitors and relatives, and also an accessible format procedure was available to people who used the service. Where complaints had been received, these had been thoroughly investigated and documented.

We found that people's needs had been assessed when they were referred to the service and the views of people had been sought when assessing their needs. However we also found that where risks had been identified in relation to a person's care or welfare, these had not been monitored regularly. We also noted that care plans had not been reviewed and that care was not delivered in line with people's changing needs.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated sufficient awareness of safeguarding procedures and were able to identify types of abuse. However, people who used the service told us they did not always feel safe living at Fellowes Way. Records we looked at showed that risks that may lead to abuse had not always been identified and managed.

Staff told us they felt supported by the management team and that they received regular supervision and appraisal meetings with their line manager. However, training records the manager sent us showed that not all staff had attended training identified as mandatory by the manager.

We saw the provider had sought the views of people who use the service, their relatives and members of staff in relation to the quality of service they receive. However we were unable to see the results of this at the time of our visit.

We re-inspected the home on 31 January 2013. We found that improvements had been made to the environment in accordance with the provider's action plan. We also found that staff understood how to keep people safe and our records showed that the provider had responded properly to allegations of abuse.

People's care and treatment reflected their individual needs and staff were knowledgeable and skilled in supporting people with autism. People's care and treatment was delivered in a way that promoted their safety and welfare.

Essential repairs to the environment had been carried out and the building had been redecorated and carpeted throughout.

We found that staff were supported and trained to carry out their role effectively. All staff had undergone, or were in the process of undergoing specialist training in autism.

We found that the provider correctly notified the Commission of incidents in accordance with the relevant regulations.