You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

This inspection took place 12 and 13 June 2018 and was announced. This was because the service is a small service and we needed to be sure someone was in to help us carry out our inspection.

This was the first comprehensive inspection of the service since it had been acquired by the provider Livability.

Livability Hallgate 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 home accommodates up to five people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection there were five people using the service.

The care service has been developed 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

The service had a registered manager. 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 using the service were kept safe by staff who understood the personal risks to each person who used the service including living in the home and accessing the community. Staff regularly reviewed these risks and engaged other professionals where people’s behaviour changed.

Medicines were safely administered by staff who were trained and assessed as competent to do so. In keeping with a national initiative called STOMP-LD (Stopping over-medication of people with learning disabilities) staff had worked with people in a very positive way to reduce their need for mood stabilising medicines.

There were enough staff on duty. The registered manager had recruited more staff and were awaiting the completion of pre-employment checks before new staff could begin to work in the home. Prospective staff were required to detail their experience and learning on an application form. Three references were required by the provider to seek information on a person’s character and suitability for the post.

In the absence of having a full staff complement agency staff had been employed in the service. Agency staff received an induction to the service. Staff employed in the service also underwent an induction process and were supported to carry out their roles using supervision, training and appraisals.

People attended a house meeting and had meetings with their keyworkers to enable them to influence how their care was provided and their home managed.

Records showed regular checks were carried out on the building and its contents to ensure people lived in a safe environment.

People’s human rights were protected by staff who promoted their right to family life and access to medical service to promote their health and well-being. Staff enabled people to play an equal part in their home and community.

The service had appropriate systems in place to protect people from harm. Staff had been trained in safeguarding and felt able to discuss any concerns with the registered manager.

The provider had a staff disciplinary policy in place to address any staff behaviour which was not acceptable.

People had their own menu’s in place which reflected their personal tastes. Pictures were available for people to choose their menu for the week before they assisted with shopping.

The service had engaged professionals from different disciplines to support people’s needs and included their advice in people’s care plans.

Staff supported people with kindness and patience. They respected people’s choices and encouraged them to be as i

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was safe.

People were cared for in a safe environment and by sufficient staff on duty.

Staff underwent a thorough recruitment process to ensure they were suitable to work with people with additional learning needs.

People received their medicines from staff who had been trained in medicines administration and assessed as competent to do so.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was effective.

The service was located in an old building. The provider had made adaptions to the building to meet people�s care needs.

People chose the meals they liked to eat and were supported by staff to do a weekly shop.

The service met the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was caring.

Staff engaged people in conversations throughout our inspection. They used humour and positive language.

Relatives complimented the staff on their kindness and patience.

People were supported to be as independent as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People engaged with their keyworker each month to monitor if their needs were being met.

Care plans with associated risk assessments were personalised, accurate and up to date.

There had been no complaints made about the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 July 2018

The service was well-led.

Effective systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service and actions plans were designed to make continuous improvements.

People were able to access their local community and participate in the local events.

The registered manager held meetings to give staff up to date information, and share ideas and invite their ideas to support people living in the home.