You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 November 2018

The inspection took place on 31 October 2018 and was announced. This is the first inspection of this service since it registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in October 2017.

Cavendish House is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It is registered to provide a service to children, younger adults and older people living with learning disabilities, mental health issues and physical and sensory impairments. There were five young men using the service at the time of this inspection.

Not everyone using Cavendish House receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The care service has been developed and designed 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.

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. The provider had a manager in post who had submitted their application to register with CQC.

Staff had been trained in how to safeguard people from avoidable harm and were knowledgeable about the potential risks and signs of abuse. People were supported to take risks to help retain their independence and freedom. Enough safely recruited staff were available to meet people’s needs. People's medicines were safely managed. Staff had received training in infection control practices and personal protective equipment such as gloves and aprons was provided for them. The management and staff team used incidents as a learning tool to help further ensure people’s safety and wellbeing.

Staff received training and supervision to enable them to meet people’s care and support needs. The service worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The staff and management team liaised with social care commissioners and appointed next-of-kin where people were not able to give consent. Staff did not cook meals for the young people they supported, however they did advise a healthy eating regime and people’s weights were recorded if a risk had been identified in this area. The staff and management team worked in partnership with external professionals and families to help ensure the individuals needs were identified and met.

People had a small team of staff who supported them which helped to ensure continuity and enabled people to form bonds with the staff. Each person was treated as an individual and their needs and wants were managed on an individual basis. Staff had developed positive and caring relationships with people they clearly knew well. Staff understood the importance of promoting people’s independence and support plans supported this to allow people to live as independently as possible. People's care records were stored securely to help maintain their dignity and confidentiality. The approach of the service meant that the staff and management team worked with individuals in a way that promoted their dignity and independence and empowered people.

People and their relatives had been involved in developing support plans that addressed all areas of people’s lives including social networks, employment and education, health needs and individual identity. Support staff were matched as far as possible with the people they supported in terms of gender, interests and skills. Staff accompanied people into the community to und

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 13 November 2018

The service was safe:

Staff had been trained in how to safeguard people from avoidable harm and were knowledgeable about the potential risks and signs of abuse.

People were supported to take risks to help retain their independence and freedom.

There were enough staff available to meet people�s needs.

Safe and effective recruitment practices were followed to help make sure that all staff were of good character and suitable for the roles they performed at the service.

People's medicines were safely managed.

Staff had received training in infection control practices and personal protective equipment such as gloves and aprons was provided for them.

The management and staff team used learning from incidents as a tool to help further ensure people�s safety and wellbeing.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 November 2018

The service was effective:

Staff received training and supervision to help them to meet people�s care and support needs.

The service worked within the principles of the MCA. The staff and management team liaised with social care commissioners and appointed next-of-kin where people were not able to give their consent to care and support.

The staff and management team worked in partnership with external professionals and families to help ensure the individuals needs were identified and met.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 November 2018

The service was caring:

People were supported by a small team of staff which helped to ensure continuity and enabled people to form bonds with the staff.

Staff had developed positive and caring relationships with people they clearly knew well.

Staff understood the importance of promoting people�s independence and support plans supported this to allow people to live as independently as possible.

People's care records were stored securely to help maintain their dignity and confidentiality.

The approach of the service allowed the staff and management team to work with individuals in a way that promoted their dignity, promoted independence and empowered people who used the service.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 November 2018

The service was responsive:

People and their relatives had been involved in developing support plans that were sufficiently detailed to be able to guide staff to provide people�s individual needs.

Support staff were matched as far as possible with the people they supported in terms of gender, interests and skills.

Social workers told us that the service was responsive to people�s needs.

Staff accompanied people into the community to undertake activities of their choice.

Concerns and complaints raised by people who used the service or their relatives were appropriately investigated and resolved.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 November 2018

The service was well-led:

People, relatives and staff told us they felt well supported by the manager and provider.

Relatives told us they would be confident to recommend the service to anyone looking for care in their own homes.

The manager demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of the staff they employed and people who used the service.

There were regular management meetings held between the manager and provider to discuss such issues as recruitment, the performance of the service and any matters arising.

There were a range of checks undertaken routinely to help ensure that the service was safe.

The organisational records, staff training database and health and safety files were organised and available.

Feedback from people and relatives was actively encouraged.