Archived: Surrey Place

Updated 16 February 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

One adult social care inspector completed this unannounced inspection of Surrey Place on 27 November 2015.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the home. The information included reports from local authority contract monitoring visits. We reviewed notifications that we had received from the service and information from people who had contacted us about the service since the last inspection, for example, people who wished to compliment or had information that they thought would be useful about the service.

Before the inspection we obtained information from a Strategic Commissioning Manager and Commissioning Services Manager from Durham County Council, a Commissioning Manager and an Adult Safeguarding Lead Officer from Durham and Darlington Clinical Commissioning Group, Safeguarding Practice Officer and Safeguarding Lead Officer of Durham County Council, and a Lead Infection Control Nurse. No concerns were raised by these professionals.

During the inspection we spoke with two people who used the service. We also spoke with the registered manager and one care staff member.

We spent time with people in the lounge and observed how staff interacted and supported individuals. We also undertook general observations of practices within the home and we also reviewed relevant records. We looked at two people’s care records, recruitment records and the staff training records, as well as records relating to the management of the service. We looked around the service and went into some people’s bedrooms (with their permission), bathrooms and the communal areas.

Before the inspection, we did not ask the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service before an inspection. We saw that the registered manager worked in partnership with other professionals to make improvements to the service. During the inspection we asked the registered manager and staff what was good about the service.

Updated 16 February 2016

We carried out this inspection on 27 November 2015. This was an unannounced inspection which meant that the staff and provider did not know that we would be visiting.

Surrey Place provides accommodation and personal care for up to three people with learning disabilities. The home is a semi-detached house with surrounding gardens in a residential area near to public transport routes, local shops and community facilities.

At the previous inspection in January 2014 we found the provider to be fully compliant with legal requirements.

The inspection was led by an adult social care inspector.

There was a registered manager in place who had been in their present post at the home for over 10 years. 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 who used the service made complimentary statements about the standard of care provided. They told us they liked living at the home, liked the people they lived with and they got along with staff who were friendly and helped them. We saw staff treated people with dignity, compassion and respect and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

We observed staff to be kind and respectful; we saw that they were aware of how to respect people’s privacy and dignity.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the present needs of people using the service. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place at this location and carried out background checks when they employed staff to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff training records were up to date and staff received regular supervisions, appraisals and a training / development plan was also completed, which meant that staff were properly supported to provide care to people who used the service.

We saw that people were supported to take part in interesting and meaningful activities. They took part in education, leisure and social events and staff were constantly looking for more opportunities for people to enjoy.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare professionals and services. People were supported and encouraged to have regular health checks and were always accompanied by staff to hospital appointments and emergencies.

People at the home were regularly asked for their views about the service and if there was anything they would like to improve. People we spoke with told us that they knew how to make a complaint and found the registered manager approachable with no concerns about the service.

There were robust procedures in place to make sure people were protected from abuse and staff had received training about the actions they must take if they saw or suspected that abuse was taking place.

People told us they were offered a selection of meals and there were always alternatives available. We saw that each individual’s preference was catered for and people were supported to make their own meals and ensure their nutritional needs and tastes were met.

We saw medication audits were carried out regularly by the management team to make sure people received the treatment they needed.

The home was clean, spacious and suitably built or adapted for the people who presently used the service.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. We found the registered provider was following legal requirements in relation to deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS).

The provider had a robust quality assurance system in place and gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources including people who used the service and their family and representatives. The staff and registered manager reflected on the work they had done to meet peoples’ needs so they could see if there was any improvements they could make.