You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 January 2017

This inspection took place on 7 November 2016 and was unannounced.

There was a registered manager 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.

1 Ridgewood Drive is a purpose built home for up to five people with learning disabilities and complex physical needs. Accommodation is provided over one floor. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the home.

At our last inspection in October 2015, we identified concerns with staffing levels and compliance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005). At this inspection, we found that action had been taken to resolve the concerns.

People received their medicines safely. Medicines were stored safely and systems were in place to ensure medicine stock could be monitored and audited.

Staff training was tailored to the individual needs of people who lived at the home. Staff told us that they had good access to training and people and relatives told us that staff were effective in their roles.

Risk assessments promoted independence whilst also ensuring people were kept safe from known hazards. Where incidents had occurred, measures were taken to prevent a reoccurrence. Staff understood their roles in safeguarding people.

Staff provided care in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA). Records demonstrated that people’s rights were protected as staff acted in accordance with the MCA when being supported to make specific decisions. Where people had restrictions placed upon them, these were applied for appropriately.

People were supported by kind, compassionate staff who knew them well. Care plans were person centred and reflected people’s needs and preferences. Reviews happened regularly to identify changes in people’s needs.

People lived in an inclusive atmosphere where they were involved in decisions about their home. People had access to a wide range of activities and regular parties and events at the home.

People were supported to eat meals that they enjoyed in line with their dietary requirements. Staff followed the guidance of healthcare professionals where appropriate and we saw evidence of staff working alongside healthcare professionals to achieve positive outcomes for people.

Staff told us that they were well supported by management and were encouraged to make suggestions or raise concerns. Relatives told us that they had a positive relationship with the registered manager and our observations showed people got along well with the registered manager.

Systems were in place to measure the quality of the care that people received. Where shortfalls were identified, the registered manager made improvements to improve the quality of people’s care. People and relatives were given opportunities to provide feedback and were aware of how to make a complaint.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 January 2017

The service was safe.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in safeguarding people and understood how to follow procedures to keep people safe.

Risk assessments promoted independence whilst also ensuring people were kept safe from known hazards.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and systems were in place to monitor patterns and respond appropriately.

Contingency systems and emergency procedures were in place in case of emergencies and staff understood how to respond.

People’s medicines were stored and administered safely by trained staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 January 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported to eat food in line with their preferences. People’s dietary requirements were met.

People were supported by staff who were trained and knowledgeable about their individual needs.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and people were supported in line with its’ guidance.

People had access to a range of healthcare professionals, who were involved in assessments and reviews.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 January 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff that knew them well.

People were included in decisions about their care and staff encouraged them to be independent.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 January 2017

The service was responsive.

Assessments and care plans were person centred and reflected people’s needs, interests and preferences.

People were supported to engage in activities that were meaningful to them.

A complaints policy and procedure was in place that gave people opportunities to raise any concerns that they might have.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 January 2017

The service was well- led.

Staff told us that they had support from management and had opportunities to contribute to the running of the service.

People’s feedback was sought in order to identify improvements that could be made.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of care and to ensure that people received good care.