The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: The Laurels

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

5 Hall Close, Hartford, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE29 1XJ (01480) 450596

Provided and run by:
Huntingdon Mencap Society Limited

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

18 September 2015

During a routine inspection

The Laurels is registered to provide personal care to people living in supported living schemes and in their own home. At the time of our inspection there were 22 people using the service.

At our previous inspection on 20 June 2014 we found the provider was not meeting one of the standards that we assessed. This was in relation to supporting staff. The provider told us they would make the necessary improvements by 30 September 2014. At this inspection of 18 September 2015 we found that the necessary improvements had been made.

This announced inspection took place on 18 September 2015 and was completed by one inspector. 48 hours’ notice of the inspection was given because we wanted to make sure the manager and staff were available. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

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.

Staff were recruited through a robust recruitment process. This process checked to make sure that staff were suitable to work with people using the service before they commenced their employment There was a sufficient number of suitably qualified and experienced staff working at the service. Staff who were new to the service were provided with a comprehensive induction with support from experienced staff.

Staff who had been trained in medicine’s administration had their competency to do this assessed regularly. This was to help ensure they adhered to safe practice.

Staff had been trained and were knowledgeable about protecting people from harm. They had a good awareness and understanding of the correct reporting procedures.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The service’s registered manager and staff were knowledgeable about when an assessment of people’s mental capacity was required. Staff were aware of the circumstances and conditions when an application to lawfully deprive any person of their liberty was required. This included liaising with the local authority.

People received dignified care that was provided with compassion and in the privacy of people’s homes. People were supported to improve their independent living skills. Staff respected people’s choices and preferences.

People were involved in the development and review of their care. Relatives, care staff, health care professionals and social workers contributed to people’s care needs. This was to help ensure that people were provided with care and support based upon the person’s latest and most up-to-date care information. People chose the format and design of their care plans.

People were supported to access a range of health care professionals including occupational therapist, a GP and speech and language therapists. Staff adhered to the advice and guidance provided by health care professionals. Risk assessments were in place to help manage each person’s assessed health risks.

People were encouraged to eat a balanced diet which was appropriate for their needs. People were supported to eat a diet appropriate to their assessed needs.

People, relatives and others involved in people’s care were encouraged to raise concerns and complaints if they wished. The provider was proactive in taking action to prevent the potential for any recurrences. Staff were aware of the correct reporting actions should they ever have a need.

The provider, registered manager and the senior care staff had audits and quality assurance processes and procedures in place. These audits were effective and identified areas for improvements.

Staff were supported with regular supervision to develop their skills, increase their knowledge and obtain additional care related and management qualifications.

26 June 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection team was made up of one inspector. As part of this inspection we spoke with the manager, deputy manager, four staff, three people who used the service and four relatives. We looked at three people's care records and checked the provider's arrangements to safeguard people from abuse.

We reviewed information about staff training, supervision and support. We also confirmed how the provider monitored the quality of the service provided together with record keeping. Below is a summary of what we found.

If you wish to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe and we saw that procedures were in place that protected people from abuse. One person said, 'I am safe here. I have not had problems.' A relative commented, 'I have never had any concerns about abuse. Absolutely not.'

Care records contained risk assessments that promoted people's independence and enabled them to access activities of their choice. This meant that people's safety and welfare was protected.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated an awareness of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which protect people who are unable to make decisions for themselves.

Is the service effective?

We observed good relationships between staff and people who used the service. Staff we spoke with demonstrated that they understood how to meet people's individual needs. One relative commented, 'The care is excellent, I couldn't fault it.'

Care records we checked were regularly reviewed and up to date. One relative commented, 'Staff tell me what has gone on during the week. I read the daily notes and support plan.'

A high proportion of staff were not up to date with some areas of their annual mandatory training. This meant there was a risk that staff would not always have the right skills and experience to ensure people's needs were met.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by staff who were kind and respectful. One person told us, 'The staff are helpful.' A relative commented, 'Staff make people feel special as individuals. People are kept busy with activities they like.'

Care records contained information about people's preferences and it was clear that people had been involved in planning their care. One relative told us, 'The care is beyond our expectations.'

Is the service responsive?

People and their relatives expressed high levels of satisfaction with the service. One relative told us, 'I have never had any concerns. I would have no qualms about approaching the team if I needed to. Another relative said, 'I can raise concerns with the team.'

We found that there had been no recent complaints. Many compliments about the service had been received.

Is the service well led?

The provider had systems in place that ensured there was regular contact with people who used the service. Feedback from a recent questionnaire showed that levels of satisfaction with the service were high.

Records that related to people and staff were kept securely and could be located promptly. We found that records relevant to the operation of the service were available on request.

19 August 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection on 19 August 2013, we found that people who were supported by the provider were involved in setting their own personal goals and in planning how their care needs were met. One person told us: 'They {staff} are great. They help and support me'.

We found that care records were current and reflected the needs of the people the provider supported.

A recruitment procedure was in place which ensured that only people suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed. Staff received a wide range of training which equipped them for their role.

There was a system in place to check that people were satisfied with the service and an effective system to monitor and audit services provided to people who were supported by the service.

There was an effective system in place to deal with any complaints or concerns people supportd by the provider or their relatives might raise.

29 July 2012

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with told us that they were able to discuss their care and support needs and the daily assistance that they needed with staff.

People we spoke with were complimentary and positive about the support and assistance they received. One person commented that, "The staff are really helpful and kind"

Two relatives of people using the service we spoke with were complimentary and positive about the care and support provided. One person commented that their relative was, "Thriving and becoming far more independent"