28 November 2018
During a routine inspection
St Nicholas Glebe is a supported living service that can accommodate up to six people.
On the day of our inspection four younger adults with mental health care needs and learning disabilities were living together at 6 St Nicholas Glebe. The accommodation was owned by a Housing Association and consisted of one bedroom self-contained flat and five single-occupancy bedrooms with a shared communal lounge, kitchen, toilets and showers.
People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. This inspection only looked at people’s personal care and support as the Care Quality Commission (CQC) does not regulate premises used for supported living.
The supported living 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 the promotion of choice, independence and inclusion, so people with learning disabilities and autism can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
This inspection will represent the first time we have rated the service because they were newly registered with the CQC in November 2017. We have rated the service ‘Good’ overall and for all five key questions, ‘Is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?’
The service has had the same registered manager in post since they registered with us 12 months ago. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage a service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People received a safe service where they were protected from avoidable harm, discrimination and abuse. Risks associated with people’s needs including the environment, had been assessed and planned for and these were monitored for any changes. People did not have any undue restrictions placed upon them. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and safe staff recruitment procedures were in place and used. Where people needed assistance with taking their medicine this was monitored and safely managed in line with best practice guidance. Accidents and incidents were analysed for lessons learnt and these were shared with the staff team to reduce further reoccurrence.
People received an effective service. Staff received the training and support they required including specialist training to meet people’s individual needs. People were supported with their nutritional needs. Staff identified when people required further support with eating and drinking and took appropriate action. The staff worked well with external healthcare professionals, people were supported with their needs and accessed health services when required. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) were followed.
People received support from staff who were kind and compassionate. Staff treated people they supported with dignity and respected their privacy. Staff had developed positive relationships with the people they supported, they understood people’s needs, preferences and what was important to them. Staff knew how to comfort people when they were distressed and made sure that emotional support was provided. People’s independence was promoted.
People received a responsive service. People’s needs were assessed and planned for with the involvement of the person and or their relative where required. Service delivery plans were personalised and up to date. People received opportunities to pursue their interests and hobbies, and relevant educational, vocational and social activities were offered. There was a complaints procedure and action had been taken to learn and improve where this was possible.
The service was well-led. The monitoring of service provision was effective because repeated shortfalls were identified or resolved. There was an open and transparent and person-centred culture with adequate leadership. People were asked to share their feedback about the service action was taken in response.