We carried out a review of the data available to us about Valley Way Respite Service on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Valley Way Respite Service, you can give feedback on this service.
Valley Way respite service is a residential respite service which accommodates up to six adults with physical and learning disabilities and profound or complex needs. At the time of our inspection, five people were using the service. The service has forty-two people they provide respite care to when required. Respite care provides planned short and long term breaks for people and their families including temporary emergency care. The home has three floors with accommodation on the ground and first floor and lift access throughout the service; all six bedrooms have en suite facilities.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service applied the principles of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
At this inspection, we found the service was outstanding in empowering people to have as much control over their lives as possible and to achieve their maximum potential.
Relatives and healthcare professionals felt the care was highly personalised and staff worked well to deliver an excellent level of care. We found multiple examples to demonstrate the staff and management team were passionate about providing an innovative, responsive and excellent service to people.
The service had safeguarding procedures in place and staff had a clear understanding of these procedures. Appropriate recruitment checks had taken place before staff started work and there were enough staff available to meet people’s care and support needs. Risks to people had been assessed to ensure their needs were safely met. The service had procedures in place to reduce the risk of infections. People’s medicines were managed safely.
People’s care and support needs were assessed when they used the service. Staff were supported through induction, training, regular supervision and annual appraisals of their work performance. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet and they had access to health care professionals when they needed them.
Staff were kind and caring and people’s independence was promoted. People’s privacy and dignity was respected. People and their relatives, where appropriate, had been consulted about their care and support needs.
There were procedures in place to respond to complaints. The provider had investigated and responded promptly to any concerns received. There were effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. The provider worked in partnership with healthcare services and professionals to plan and deliver an effective service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 5 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
There were robust safeguarding processes in place and the service had demonstrated where it had learned from incidents and improved practise to keep people safe. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Medicines were managed safely and the home was clean.
The service operated effective procedures and support to give respite to people and their families. There was a range of healthy food on offer tailored to people’s preferences. Staff had basic and more specialist training and regular supervision. People were supported to have maximum choice and control in their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
We observed staff being kind and caring in their interactions with people, families told us the service had a homely feel. People’s dignity and privacy was respected.
The service responded to emerging needs appropriately and support plans were person centred and captured what people liked and didn’t, how they could be supported and how they communicated. Relatives knew how to complain and the service complaints procedure was followed.
Staff felt supported and the service had robust quality audits in place to pick up on any gaps in support plans and daily records. The service was looking to improve its facilities by redecorating and building a sensory garden.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This unannounced inspection took place on 25 March 2015. When we last inspected on 21 October 2013 we found the service met required standards relating to care and welfare of people who use services, medicines management, supporting staff, assessing and monitoring the quality of the service and nutrition.
Valley Way Respite Service provides respite accommodation and support for up to six people with learning disabilities who live with their families or unpaid carers. 45 people regularly used the service at the time of our inspection, for regular and emergency respite for a number of days per year based on local authority assessment of needs. There were four people staying there when we visited. Most people who used the service lived in the London Borough of Barnet.
The service is provided in a large, three-storey purpose-built building that is accessible for people who use wheelchairs or have other mobility limitations. Each person has their own room with ensuite bathroom and there is a sensory room and garden for people to use.
There was a registered manager in place. 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.
We found that the service provided safe, effective care that met people’s needs. Risks associated with people’s support were assessed and guidelines put in place to reduce those risks. People had care plans that were person-centred and reviewed regularly to ensure that changes were made to their support when necessary.
People were encouraged to express their preferences about their support and there were systems in place to ensure people who did not always communicate verbally could have their say. Staff built good relationships with people and knew about their histories and communication needs. Staff were caring and compassionate.
Staff knew what to do to keep people safe. There were appropriate procedures in place to ensure they knew how to report any concerns about people and these were acted upon.
Staff supported people to eat nutritious food and access health care facilities when they needed to. Staff received appropriate training and support to ensure they met people’s needs safely and were competent for their roles.
The registered manager sought feedback about the service from people, their relatives and carers, staff and other interested stakeholders. People knew how to complain if they wished to. The registered manager checked the service regularly and made changes to improve the service based on these checks.
Care plans were detailed and included guidance from other professionals and risk assessments. Guidance was provided for staff as to how to provide care for people safely. There were detailed assessments of people's eating and drinking needs and how risks associated with eating were to be addressed. A choice of food was provided and there was the capacity to provide specific religious or cultural diets.
People's medication needs had been assessed and there were clear arrangements for recording medicines brought into the home and administered to people. Staff told us they were supported by the manager and by 'good teamwork.' We saw that staff had been provided with a range of training as well as regular supervision and appraisals.
There were a range of quality and monitoring initiatives available to the manager. These included the analysis of incidents, accidents and complaints and the input of an active parents group. Some of the other quality initiatives, such as provider lead initiatives, were in development stage.
Through conversation and observation we established that people were happy and felt supported at Valley Way. The home was warm and clean and is fully adapted for people with mobility needs.
We saw that staff treated people with respect and dignity. People we spoke with told us that the staff were kind and respected their privacy. We observed staff supporting people in a friendly and professional way and saw that people were being offered choice with regard to menus, activities and care preferences. People were positive about the care and treatment they received at the home. Records showed us that people who use this service had good access to a range of health professionals.
We spoke with people who told us that they felt safe at this home. Staff that we spoke with werel aware of the different forms of abuse that might occur and were able to explain how they would escalate any safeguarding alert.
Policies and procedures and health and safety files were appropriate to support delivery of a safe service to people. We saw that these records were regularly updated. There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided.