27 November 2015
During a routine inspection
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.