You are here

The provider of this service has requested a review of one or more of the ratings.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

Our inspection was unannounced and took place on 22 August 2017.

At our last inspection on 12 August 2015 the service was rated as good in all five questions we ask: Is the service safe? : Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? And, Is the service well-led?

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to a maximum of four people. On the day of our inspection four people lived at the home. People lived with a range of conditions that included learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder.

The manager was registered with us and was present on the day. 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 knew who the registered manager was and they were visible within the service. Quality monitoring processes, the use of provider feedback forms and meetings helped to ensure that service was being run in the best interests of the people who lived there. However, the provider had not consistently notify us of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding [DoLS] authorisations.

People told us that they felt safe. Systems were in place to prevent people from the risk of harm and abuse. Staffing levels ensured there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Recruitment systems were in place to prevent the possibility of unsuitable staff being employed. Medicines were managed safely and in a way that ensured people were supported to take their medicines as they had been prescribed.

Staff were provided with the training they required to ensure that they had the skills and knowledge to provide safe and appropriate care to people. Staff confirmed that they were adequately supported in their job roles. People received care in line with their best interests and processes were in place to ensure they were not restricted unlawfully. People were supported to have the food and drink to suit their needs and preferences. People had access to a range of healthcare services.

Relationships and interactions between staff and people were positive. Staff were friendly, polite and helpful to people. People were encouraged to make everyday choices and they were supported to enhance and maintain their independence and daily living skills. Staff enabled people to maintain contact with their family. Visiting times were flexible.

People needs were reviewed regularly to ensure that they could be met. A complaints system was available for people and their relatives to use if they had the need. A varied range of activities were available each day for people to engage in. The views of people and their relatives were sought regularly regarding their satisfaction with the service provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service was safe.

Systems were in place staff were aware of and would follow to keep people safe and prevent the risk of harm and abuse.

Medicines were managed safely and ensured people received their medicines as they had been prescribed.

Recruitment systems prevented the employment of unsuitable staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service was effective.

People and their relatives felt that the service provided was good and effective.

Staff were trained and supported appropriately to enable them to carry out their job roles.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which ensured that people were not unlawfully restricted and that they received care in line with their best interests.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service was caring.

The staff were kind, caring and attentive to people.

People’s dignity, privacy and independence were promoted and maintained.

Visiting times were open and flexible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service was responsive.

People needs were reviewed to ensure that their needs could be met.

The staff knew the people well enough to meet their needs.

Complaints processes gave people assurance that complaints would be appropriately dealt with.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service was well-led.

A manager was registered with us as is required by law.

Management support systems were in place to ensure staff could ask for advice and assistance when it was needed.

The provider had not consistently notified us of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] authorisations.