You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Edwin Therapeutic Unit. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 February 2019

The inspection took place on 24 January 2019 and was unannounced.

Edwin Therapeutic Unit is a ‘care home’. People in care homes 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. The service was registered to provide care for up to three young people with learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, mental health issues and eating disorders. There was one person living at the service as another person had transferred to another service the week before the inspection.

The care 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 choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a registered manager in post who was present during inspection. 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.

At the last inspection on 30 November 2017, the overall rating of the service was ‘Requires Improvement. We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. People were not supported to maintain and develop their independence nor to meet their assessed needs and goals.

We required the provider to take action to make improvements. The provider sent us an action plan detailing how they planned to address the breaches of Regulations and said that this would be completed by the 31 March 2018.

We also made recommendations about the helping people to maintain a balanced diet and to make sure staff skills were kept up to date with best practice.

At this inspection, we found the service had improved. The registered manager had led a cultural shift in the staff team so that they were clear about the aims of the service. These were to support people to maintain and develop life skills. People were encouraged to work towards achieving their goals, to take steps towards independence and be responsible for their meals.

The frequency of staff training in key areas had changed to help ensure they knew how to support people’s individual needs.

Staff knew what steps to take to safeguard people from situations in which they may be at risk of experiencing abuse. Risks to people's safety had been assessed, monitored and managed to make sure people were protected from harm. There were enough care staff to provide people with the care they needed. Checks had been completed before new care staff had been appointed. Suitable provision had been made to prevent and control infection. Lessons had been learned when things had gone wrong. There were policies and procedures for the management of medicines and staff had received training in how to give and record people’s medicines.

People were helped to access healthcare services. Staff understood how to support people to make informed choices and decisions. 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.

Staff communicated with people in a kind manner and treated them with dignity and respect. Positive and valued relationships had developed between people and staff. People were supported to pursue their hobbies and interest. People had access to advocates when necessary.

People were asked for their views about the service and there were opportunities for them to raise any concerns or complaints so they could be acted on. The quality of t

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 February 2019

The service was safe.

Risks to people's safety and welfare were managed to make sure they were protected from harm.

Staff knew how to recognise any potential abuse.

Staff had received training in the administration of medicines.

People were protected by the service�s recruitment practices and there were enough staff available to meet people�s needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 February 2019

The service had improved so that it was effective.

People were responsible for their own meals and staff informed them of healthy food options.

The frequency of staff training had changed to make sure staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people�s needs.

People�s health care needs were assessed and monitored and people had access to healthcare professionals when needed.

Staff understood when people had capacity to make decisions and any lawful restrictions to their freedom.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 February 2019

The service had improved so that it was caring.

Improvements had been made so that people were supported to develop their independence and life skills according to the ethos and aims of the service.

People were treated with dignity and respect and as individuals.

Staff were kind and caring and in their approach and knew people well.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 February 2019

The service had improved so that it was responsive.

People were involved in the development of their care plans and setting their own goals.

Staff engagement with people had improved which meant that people were involved in appropriate activities.

Information about how to make a complaint was available to people in a format they could understand.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 February 2019

The service had improved so that it was well-led.

The registered manager had changed the culture of the service for the benefit of people.

Staff had a clear understanding of how to put the aims of the service into practice.

Effective quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place which included asking people for their views of the service.