You are here

Archived: Livability Norwich Road Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 August 2018

This inspection was announced three working days prior to our visit, as it is a small home and we wanted to ensure that someone would be available to speak with us. This was the first comprehensive inspection carried out of this service which was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in June 2017 under new care providers.

3 Norwich Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a 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 home accommodates up to 3 people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection 3 people were living in the home.

3 Norwich Road provided accommodation and care to adults who have a learning difficulty. The home had communal areas such as a kitchen and lounge, and people were accommodated in their own rooms, with communal bathroom and separate toilet.

There was not a registered manager working in the service. 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. A manager had been recruited and had been in the service for just over two weeks, they also managed another of the provider’s services in the area. They had commenced the process of registering with CQC. They attended the inspection along with the deputy manager of both homes.

There were quality assurance systems in place for the assessment, monitoring and improvement of the service but these had not been utilised consistently. These areas had been identified by the manager, however they had not yet had time to ensure these were properly implemented. Areas which required some further oversight and improvement were the medicines records, infection control, competency checking and keeping care plans up to date. This included people’s records in relation to their capacity to make decisions.

People were supported by a suitable number of staff who understood how to keep them safe, and staff were recruited safely. Risks to people were assessed and mitigated, including those associated with the environment they lived in as well as their own health needs. Staff administered medicines safely, and people received these as prescribed.

People’s needs were thoroughly assessed prior to moving into the home. The staff continued to work effectively with other teams to ensure people received consistent care. Staff received training relevant to their roles, including the provider’s mandatory training as well as training specific to some people’s needs. They also received supervisions from the management team. Staff supported people to drink enough and to eat a balanced diet, and to access healthcare as needed.

People lived in a homely environment which was adapted to their needs. Staff knew about people’s mental capacity and understood how to support people to make decisions, however improvements were needed in respect of records.

There were caring and supportive relationships between staff and people. Staff adapted their communication according to people’s needs. Privacy and dignity was promoted at all times, and people and relatives were involved in their care as much as possible.

Care records were in place for people living in the home, and these contained individualised guidance for staff about how to support people. People were able to go out into the local community if they wanted, and participate in activities, as well as do activities in the home with staff.

There was a complaints system in place, and people were encouraged to raise concerns if they had any.

There was good leadership in place and staff felt happy and rewarded in their roles, and were aware of their responsibilities.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 17 August 2018

The service was safe.

There were systems in place to keep people safe and manage risks associated with their care.

There were enough staff to keep people safe and they understood how to keep people safe.

Medicines were administered as they had been prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were competent and received training relevant to their roles.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs.

Staff understood people’s mental capacity and supported them to make decisions.

The organisation supported people to access healthcare and worked with professionals to achieve consistent care.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 August 2018

The service was caring.

Staff had built positive relationships with people and were kind, caring and compassionate.

Privacy and dignity was respected and staff encouraged people to maintain their independence.

People and their families were involved in their care as much as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 August 2018

The service was responsive.

The service supported people to participate in activities which reflected their interests, both within the home and the local community.

Care plans reflected people’s needs and contained guidance for staff on meeting people’s needs.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 17 August 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

There were systems in place to monitor, assess and improve the service. However, these had not been utilised consistently and as a result there were shortfalls in some areas of the service.

There was good leadership and teamwork in place and the management team were approachable and accessible. The manager was aware of their responsibilities.