You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 13 October 2018

This announced comprehensive inspection took place on 30 August 2018. This was the service’s first inspection since registering with CQC in April 2018.

Siesta is a respite unit for people with a learning disability and is registered to support up to seven people at any one time. People stay at the service for varying periods of time: some people stay for two days each week while others spend one to two weeks a month at the service. At the time of the inspection there were five people receiving respite support.

People using this service receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Accommodation is provided over two floors. On the ground floor there are five spacious en-suite bedrooms fitted with equipment to support people with impaired mobility. One the first floor, there is a two-bedroomed self-contained apartment. A large communal lounge, dining area and kitchen are situated on the ground floor.

Siesta respite service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin 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. During the inspection the service was able to demonstrate these principles through individualised support for people to be actively involved in the community and to learn new skills.

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.

People received safe care and support while staying at Siesta. There were sufficient staff available to support people with their care needs as well as to participate in community activities. Staff had been safely recruited and were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse. People’s care needs and any associated risks were documented and staff were knowledgeable about these and how to support people safely while respecting their preferences. Where specialist advice was necessary to guide staff about people’s care needs, this was sought and the guidance was documented to ensure consistency in care provision. Training ensured staff had the skills and competence to support people well.

People told us they were happy at Siesta; we saw they enjoyed being with staff and were pleased to see them when they arrived for their stay. Relatives said the service was safe and they were very pleased with the support provided. Where people were supported to manage their medicines and finances, this was done safely.

Staff were aware of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in that it should be assumed each person has capacity to make decisions about their care and support. Care plans guided staff about how to support people with decision making and expressing their choices. Communication passports guided staff about how to support people to express themselves and people’s communication was supported in a number of ways. For example, with the use of computers, signs, symbols and sign language.

Staff described the culture and aims of the service as being “person-centred”, “promoting independence”, “community involvement” and “family”. Staff were passionate about supporting people in a way that promoted their independence, expanding their experiences and protected their right not to be discriminated against. This culture was reflected in the comments we received from relatives, one of whom described the service as “brilliant”.

The service was well managed. Relatives and s

Inspection areas



Updated 13 October 2018

The service was safe.

People felt safe and received care in a safe way. Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm.

People were protected by safe staff recruitment process.

People received their medicines as prescribed.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet people�s needs.

The environment was designed to promote people�s independence and to ensure needs could be met safely.



Updated 13 October 2018

The service was effective.

People�s right to make decisions about their care was respected. Staff had a good understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were cared for by skilled and experienced staff who received regular training and supervision.

People's health care needs were monitored and referrals made when necessary. Clear guidance and information ensured consistency and safety in the care people received.

People�s nutrition and hydration needs were met.



Updated 13 October 2018

The service was caring.

People and relatives were positive about the care and support provided and felt staff were kind, caring and treated them with respect.

People's privacy and dignity was respected and their independence promoted.

People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends.



Updated 13 October 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s needs had been identified, were being met and were regularly reviewed.

People were supported to be involved in community activities and to develop new skills.

Feedback about the quality of the service was actively sought and used to improve the service.



Updated 13 October 2018

The service was well led.

The provider had effective systems in place for monitoring and reviewing the quality and safety of the care provided.

The management team were aware of their legal responsibilities and kept up to date with best practice.

People benefited from having a registered manager who was accessible and approachable.

People�s records were stored securely. Some records required a greater level of detail to reflect staffs� knowledge about people�s care needs and preferences.