You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 November 2018

Stratford Road is a small care home for people with learning disabilities who may have mental health difficulties. 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.

This inspection took place on 25 September and 3 October 2018. The inspection was announced. This was the first inspection since the service first registered in October 2017.

The service did not have a registered manager. There was a manager in post who had applied to become registered. 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.

Staff were knowledgeable about reporting safeguarding concerns and whistleblowing. People had risk assessments carried out to mitigate the risks of harm they may face at home and in the community. Building safety checks were carried out in line with building safety requirements. The provider carried out appropriate checks on new staff before new staff began to work in the service. There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe and to meet their needs. There were systems in place to record the administration of medicines and store medicines safely. However, there were no guidelines in place for a medicine for one person which was to be used only as needed. People were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection. Accidents and incidents were recorded and were used to learn lessons and improve the service.

People’s needs were assessed before they began to use the service to make sure the right care could be provided. Staff were supported with training opportunities, supervisions and appraisals to enable them to carry out their role effectively. Communication systems were in place to keep staff and stakeholders updated on people’s wellbeing. People were supported to eat nutritional and cultural food and to maintain their health. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the need to obtain consent before delivering care.

Staff explained how they developed caring relationships with people using the service. The provider had a ‘keyworking’ system in place where a named staff member had overall responsibility for ensuring all of a person’s needs were met. Relatives were consulted and involved in decisions about care. Staff were knowledgeable about equality and diversity. People’s privacy and dignity were promoted, and they were supported to maintain their independence.

Care plans were personalised and contained people’s preferences. Staff understood how to deliver personalised care. People were supported to achieve their personal goals and were able to participate in a range of activities. Staff supported people with their communication needs. The provider had a complaints procedure and an end of life care policy.

Relatives, stakeholders and staff spoke positively about the management of the service. The provider had a system to obtain feedback from people using the service and stakeholders. Staff had regular meetings to be updated on the wellbeing of people using the service, developments of the service and to make suggestions for improvement. The provider had quality assurance systems in place to identify areas of improvement. The service worked in partnership with other agencies to share examples of good practice and to improve the service provided.

We have made one recommendation about medicines management.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 November 2018

The service was safe. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures.

People had risk assessments in place to mitigate the risks of harm they may face. Building safety checks were carried out.

The provider had a system in place to carry out appropriate pre-employment recruitment checks. There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs.

There were systems in place to store medicines appropriately and record the administration of medicines. However, there was not always guidelines for staff in place for medicines to be administered on an �as needed� basis.

People were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection. The provider used accidents and incidents as a learning tool to make improvements.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 November 2018

The service was effective. People�s care needs were assessed before they began to use the service. Staff were supported to carry out their role with supervisions, appraisals and training.

People were supported to eat a nutritional and culturally appropriate diet and to maintain their health. There were communication systems in place to update the staff team and professionals on the well-being of people using the service.

Staff demonstrated they were aware of the legal framework of decision-making and the need to obtain consent before delivering care.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 November 2018

The service was caring. Staff explained how they got to know people and their care needs. Relatives were consulted and involved in decisions about the care.

People had a named care worker who had overall responsibility for the care they received.

Staff described how they treated people fairly and equally. People�s privacy, dignity and independence was promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 November 2018

The service was responsive. Staff understood how to provide a personalised care service. Care plans were personalised and contained people�s preferences.

People were supported to achieve their personal goals and participated in a variety of activities. Care plans included people�s communication needs.

The provider had a complaints procedure and an end of life policy.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 November 2018

The service was well led. Relatives, stakeholders and staff gave positive feedback about leadership at the service.

The provider had a system to obtain feedback from people using the service and stakeholders.

Staff had regular meetings to be updated and contribute to the development of the service.

The provider had quality audit systems in place to identify areas for improvement.

The service liaised with other agencies to ensure people received good quality care.