During an assessment under our new approach
About the service
Springvale Resource Centre is a care home providing accommodation and care and support for up to 4 people. At the time of the inspection there were 3 people living in the home. Not everyone who lived at the home received a regulated activity. CQC only inspects where people receive a regulated activity. At the time of the assessment the service was supporting 1 person with a regulated activity. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating.
Who the service is for
The service supports younger and older people with sensory impairments or physical disabilities, including people with an acquired brain injury. The people living in the home were subject to restrictions which prevented them from accessing the community independently.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment from 23 September to 7 October.
This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them effectively. Staff were recruited safely and received training and regular supervisions, which helped to ensure competency and compliance. There was an effective system in place to ensure all training was up to date for all staff and refresher training was booked in a timely manner.
Accidents and incidents were documented and thoroughly reviewed to identify lessons learned. Appropriate actions were taken to reduce the risk of similar incidents occurring again. Complaints were also documented, reviewed and learning identified. Safeguarding incidents were logged and reviewed and reported as appropriate to the local authority and Care Quality Commission. Staff received training on safeguarding and could explain what to do if they felt someone was at risk of harm or abuse.
Risks were assessed and managed appropriately with individual risk assessments in place that were personal to people and their individual behaviours.
The necessary safety checks were completed on the home to ensure a safe living environment.
Medicines were stored and administered safely with administration dates and times clearly logged on the electronic system. However, further information was required to inform staff about medicines that needed to be administered at specific times, for example before or after food. Where people chose to have their medication at a time other than what had been prescribed, a risk assessment was required. The provider gave assurances that the necessary information would be implemented.
Documentation was in place for medicines that were to be administered ‘as required’ and staff received appropriate training and regular competency checks.
People’s needs were assessed, monitored and reviewed regularly, with family input where appropriate. The registered manager kept up to date on current legislation ensuring best practice was followed and was supported by the wider provider team including a quality department.
Care was monitored through observations, audits and discussions with people themselves and the staff that supported them. Care plans were accessed by staff on hand held devices and could be accessed by family members through a family portal.
Staff received training in consent and we saw evidence of this applied in practice as people’s wishes and preferences were respected and staff and knocked on bedroom doors before entering.
Care was tailored to individual needs and provided by staff who knew people well. Care plans contained person-centred information including information about people’s pasts, communication needs and specific behaviours. People were supported to remain independent and set aims and goals, supporting both mental and physical well-being. Staff were responsive and receptive to changes in people’s presentations and needs and worked together as a team to ensure consistent and appropriate care.
There was good oversight from the registered manager who was actively involved in the home. The quality of the care provided was monitored through audits, and where areas of non compliance or improvement were identified, appropriate action was taken. Lessons learned were shared with staff through meetings and regular one to ones which helped to embed them in the service, drive improvement and provide high-quality care.
Feedback was sought from people, their families, staff and stakeholders through surveys, and a QR code could be scanned by visitors to the home to provide further feedback. Staff feedback consistently explained the values and aims of the home and staff told us they had the right training and support to provide care that aligned with the values of passion, empowerment, respect and collaboration.