You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 December 2017

We inspected the service on 14 November 2017. The inspection was announced. 41 West Hill is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. 41 West Hill accommodates up to five people in one adapted building. On the day of our inspection three people were using the service. This was the first time we have inspected the service since it’s registration with CQC.

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 had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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 supported by staff who knew how to recognise abuse and how to respond to concerns. Risks in relation to people’s daily life were assessed and planned for to protect them from harm and they lived in a clean, hygienic service. People were supported by staff who sought to understand, prevent and manage behaviour that the service found challenging.

People were supported by enough staff to ensure they received care and support when they needed it. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.

People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills to provide safe and appropriate care and support. People were supported to make decisions and staff knew how to act if people did not have the capacity to make decisions to ensure their rights were respected.

People lived in a service which met their needs in relation to the premises and adaptions were made where needed. People had access to information in a format which met their needs.

People were supported to maintain their nutrition and staff monitored and responded to people’s health conditions.

People lived in a service where staff listened to them and got to know them. People’s support needs were recognised and responded to by a staff team who cared about the individual they were supporting. Information about people’s needs was shared between services to ensure people would be supported in other settings when needed. People were supported to enjoy a social life.

There was an open and transparent culture in the service where people were listened to and staff were valued. Systems were being developed to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 13 December 2017

The service was safe.

People were kept safe and the risk of abuse was minimised because the provider had systems in place to recognise and respond to allegations or incidents. People were supported by staff who sought to understand, prevent and manage behaviour that the service found challenging.

People received their medicines as prescribed and medicines were managed safely.

People lived in a clean and hygienic service and there were enough staff to provide care and support to people when they needed it.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 December 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who received appropriate training and supervision. People lived in a service which met their needs in relation to the premises and adaptions were made where needed. People had access to information in a format which met their needs.

People made decisions in relation to their care and support and where they needed support to make decisions their rights were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to maintain their nutrition and their health was monitored and responded to appropriately.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 December 2017

The service was caring.

People lived in a service where staff listened to them and cared for them in a way they preferred. People�s support needs were known and responded to by a staff team who cared about the individual they were supporting.

Staff respected people�s rights to privacy and treated them with dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 December 2017

The service was responsive.

People were involved in planning their care and support. People were supported to have a social life and to follow their interests.

People were supported to raise issues and staff knew what to do if issues arose. Information about people�s needs was shared between services to ensure people would be supported in other settings when needed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 December 2017

The service was well led.

There was an open and transparent culture in the service where people were listened to and staff were valued.

Systems were being developed to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.