You are here

Silverdene Residential Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 27 November 2019

About the service

Silverdene Residential Home is a residential care home for people with a learning disability and/or autism or a physical disability. Accommodation is provided in two neighbouring detached properties and a bungalow located in the grounds of the other homes. The properties consisted of the original older residential premises, a small bungalow and a more modern building that was split into two distinct areas. Each area has its’ own kitchen, bathrooms and communal facilities.

The service was developed and designed prior to the introduction of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. The service was a large home registered for the support of up to 19 people. Eighteen people were living at the home at the time of our inspection. The service is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the service not being clearly identifiable as a care home from outside the premises.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they felt safe, and staff were aware of procedures to report any concerns about people’s safety or wellbeing they might have. However, some improvements were needed to ensure the service was consistently safe. Although a range of checks were carried out on staff before they were employed, the provider had not always clearly recorded how they made decisions to employ staff when these checks indicated information of potential concern. The service was visibly clean, but we found some issues such as an overflowing bin, and mould in one of the kitchens. The provider was aware of these issues and was taking action to put them right.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff, in most cases, supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. However, we found the service had not carried out a capacity assessment or best interest decision in relation to a significant decision about one person’s care as was needed.

Staff assessed people’s needs in a wide range of areas and produced plans to guide staff how to meet these needs. People told us they liked the food and were encouraged to eat healthily. People told us they were supported to access healthcare services, and we saw a range of health and social care professionals had been involved in people’s care. The service was actively seeking ways to try and improve the consistency of support people received when moving between care settings, such as when they were admitted to hospital.

People received support from a consistent staff team who knew them well. People told us staff treated them with respect and were kind and caring. Staff supported people to build skills and promoted people’s independence. For example, they had supported people to access training enabling them to travel independently and to be involved in household tasks including cooking.

People told us they were involved in planning and reviewing their care. People’s preferences, likes, dislikes and interests were recorded in their care plans, and staff were aware of these. Staff supported people to engage in meaningful activity and occupation, which had had a positive impact on people’s wellbeing. This had included exploring work and volunteering opportunities for people and supporting people to take part in activities and interests. Staff supported people to maintain relationships with those important to them.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence. The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and valu

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 27 November 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 27 November 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 November 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 November 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 27 November 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.