Archived: Roman House and Scope Inclusion Basingstoke

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 using the service had special communication needs and communicated mainly by body language, gestures or sounds. Information on how to communicate with people was incorporated into care plans and staff were familiar with people’s communication needs.

Relatives told us they felt their family members were safe with the service provider. Risks to people were identified, plans were in place to identify and manage assessed risks to people. There were sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe. Appropriate recruitment practices were in place to ensure that staff were safe to work with vulnerable people.

People were protected from avoidable harm. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and were able to demonstrate that they knew the procedures to follow should they have any concerns.

Staff were suitably trained and had sufficient skills and knowledge to support people effectively. There was a training programme in place to meet people's needs. An induction programme was in place which enabled staff to undertake the Care Certificate. Staff received regular supervision.

People's rights were upheld in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Mental Capacity Act is a legal framework to protect people who are unable to make certain decisions themselves.

Relatives and health professionals were involved in planning people’s care. People's choices and views were respected by staff. Staff and the registered manager knew people's preferences. People were provided with information in a clear, individualised and accessible way as staff had a good understanding of how people communicated. People's privacy and dignity were respected.

People received the care they needed and staff were aware of the support each person required. Care records were focused on people's wishes and emphasized people’s views and preferences. As a result, staff were able to provide people with relevant care. A complaints procedure was in place. People’s relatives knew how to make a complaint and were confident that staff would respond to it immediately.

The management promoted an open, person-centred culture. There was a clear management structure and people, relatives and staff felt comfortable raising any issues. There were systems in place to monitor and improvement the quality of the service provided. There was an improvement plan in place that identified improvements the provider planned to make.

The service had only been operational for one month at the time of the inspection and had been set up to meet the needs of the local community and specifically the future needs of people with complex physical and learning disabilities who were currently living in residential care.

People using the service were complimentary saying they were "happy" with the support offered and also appreciated the consistency of the workers. They felt involved in decisions about care and also felt able to raise any concerns with staff.

People's needs were assessed but care plans were not always updated to reflect changing needs although the staff group had a clear understanding of people's needs to enable them to deliver appropriate and safe care.

Staff appeared motivated and felt well supported. They had received training and had clear objectives. Evidence of regular supervision was, however, patchy.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding and their responsibilities to report any concerns.

There were no formal methods of monitoring the quality of the service.