You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

At the previous inspection in November 2016 we rated Safe and Responsive as requires improvement. At this inspection we found the key question rated as requires improvement had improved their rating to good.

This inspection took place on 11 April 2018 and was unannounced.

At Wingfield Road staff can support five adults with learning disabilities that were also autistic. The home is registered to provide accommodation personal care for a maximum of five people.

It 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.

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. Registering the Right Support CQC policy.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

Safeguarding processes were in place and ensured people at the service were safeguarded from potential abuse. Staff had attended safeguarding training on how to identify the types of abuse and the actions needed where there were concerns of abuse.

Risk management systems were effective. People were supported to take risk safely which enabled them to be independent. The staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people’s individual risks and the actions needed to minimise the risks. Where risks were identified risk assessments were developed on how to minimise the risks.

There were people who expressed their anxiety and frustration using behaviours that placed them and others at risk of harm. Staff had attended training to help them manage these situations. Positive behaviour support plans gave staff guidance on how to respond to people when they expressed feelings of frustration and anxiety.

Staff documented accidents and incidents. Debrief with staff and people took place where the incidents were significant. The registered manager then analysed the reports for patterns and trends.

Steps were taken to ensure medicine systems were safe. People administered their medicines and risk assessments and support plans were in place for this. Where staff administered people’s medicines there was a profile which included their photograph and essential information such as known allergies and how the person preferred to take their medicines.

People told us there was staff on duty for them to have the attention they needed. Staff told us the team was stable and people received continuity of care from staff that knew them.

Staff attended training set as mandatory by the provider and there were opportunities for vocational qualifications. Staff told us they received basic mental health training during induction but not specific to one person’s medical condition. The registered manager said a staff meeting themed on this topic was to take place.

The people at the service had capacity to make decisions and told us they made all their decisions. The staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the day to day decisions people made.

Support plans were person centred and reflective of people’s preferences. However, we found them to be repetitive and not all the action plans were related to support plan for the same area of need. We saw copies of the updated support plans which included all aspects of needs.

People told us how they kept busy. There were people that had joined groups and att

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was safe.

People mostly self-administered their medicines. Staff followed medicine procedures. Medicine records were signed to indicate the medicines administered.

Risks were identified and where appropriate action plans were in place for people to take positive risks or to minimise the risk.

The deployment of staff ensured there was sufficient staff to meet people�s support needs.

People said they felt safe and were able to describe what safe meant to them. Staff attended safeguarding training which meant they knew how to recognise the types of abuse and how to report their concerns.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was effective.

People made their own decisions and where necessary staff helped with decision making.

The staff had the skills and knowledge needed to meet the changing needs of people.

People arranged their GP appointments and managed their dietary requirements.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness and with compassion. We saw positive interactions between staff and people using the service. Staff knew people�s needs well and how to reassure them when they became distressed.

People�s rights were respected and staff explained how these were observed.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was responsive

Support plans were person centred and reflected the areas of need. Where reviews had taken place the support plans were not always updated. Some care plans remained repetitive.

People had access to in-house activities and employment. People were supported to maintain contact with relatives.

People said they felt confident to approach registered manager with their complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was well managed.

Quality assurance arrangements were applied consistently and where shortfalls were identified action plans on meeting outcomes were in place.

Staff were aware of the values of the organisation and said the team was stable and worked well together.