You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 31 May 2017

This inspection took place on 3 May 2017 and was announced. We gave the service prior notice because the location provides a small respite service and people are not always in the building during the day. We needed to make sure someone would be in the office. At the last inspection in May 2016 the service was rated 'requires improvement'. At this inspection we found the required improvements had been made.

Respite Service is a care home without nursing which provides a respite care service to up to five adults with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorder at any one time. The people they support may have varying additional needs including physical disabilities, mental health issues and sensory impairment. The organisation has a day centre next door to the respite service premises. However, this report only relates to the provider's provision of residential respite care. The day centre services fall outside the regulatory remit of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and were not assessed as part of this inspection.

At the time of this inspection a total of five people had used the service since our last inspection. One person usually receives respite care for two nights a week every week, but had been away and had not stayed at the service since February 2017. Another person receives a total of 12 nights respite care a year, they decide when and how they use those allocated nights in consultation with the service. The other three people had stayed at the service on a once only basis and do not have a regular arrangement.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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. Due to other engagements the registered manager was not available during this inspection. The service manager was present and assisted us throughout the day.

Action had been taken to ensure people were safe from environmental risks when staying at the service. Recommendations from the local fire and rescue service had been met with improved fire safety arrangements put in place. A fire risk assessment had been carried out and actions taken to address deficiencies found. Arrangements had been made for ongoing monitoring and servicing of fire safety equipment. A legionella risk assessment had been carried out by a company qualified to do so. Work had been completed to rectify issues that raised concerns. Staff training in measures to reduce the risk of legionella had been provided and a system of ongoing monitoring for water safety had been implemented. All showers had been fitted with thermostatic mixing valves to reduce the risk of people being scalded by water that was too hot and radiators had been covered.

Systems had been implemented to enable the provider to assess, monitor and improve the safety of the services provided. The systems made sure that risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of people, staff and others were assessed, monitored and reduced when needed.

Staff received training in safeguarding adults. They understood their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents, and were supported to do so. They knew how to recognise the signs of abuse and knew what actions to take if they felt people were at risk. There were contingency plans in place to respond to emergencies.

Staff knew how people liked things done. Suitably skilled and experienced staff were available in suitable numbers to ensure people's needs could be met. The system used to calculate staffing levels took into account the needs of specific people staying at the service at any one time.

People received effective personal care and support from staff who knew them well and were well trained and supervised. People received support that was individua

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 31 May 2017

The service was safe. Action had been taken to improve the safety of the environment for people, staff and others.

Risks to people�s personal safety had been assessed and plans were in place to minimise those risks. Recruitment processes were in place to make sure, as far as possible, that people were protected from staff being employed who were not suitable.

Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe and their responsibilities for reporting accidents, incidents or concerns. There were sufficient numbers of staff and medicines were stored and handled correctly.

Effective

Good

Updated 31 May 2017

The service was effective. People benefitted from a staff team that was well trained. Staff had the skills and support needed to deliver care to a good standard.

Staff promoted people's rights to consent to their care and their rights to make their own decisions. The service manager had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and staff were aware of their responsibilities to ensure people's rights to make their own decisions were promoted. The service manager was aware of the requirements under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and was establishing the procedure to be followed when people needed an emergency respite stay.

People were supported to eat and drink enough and staff made sure actions were taken to ensure their health and social care needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 31 May 2017

The service was caring. People benefitted from a staff team that was caring and respectful.

People received individualised care from staff who understood and followed their known wishes and preferences. Equality and diversity needs were assessed and incorporated into the care provided.

People's right to confidentiality was protected and their dignity and privacy were respected. Staff encouraged people to maintain their independence where they could.

Responsive

Good

Updated 31 May 2017

The service was responsive. People received care and support that was personalised to meet their individual needs. The service provided was reviewed and adapted in response to people's changing needs.

People were able to enjoy a number of activities, based on their known likes and preferences.

People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns. Complaints were dealt with quickly and resolutions were recorded along with actions taken.

Well-led

Good

Updated 31 May 2017

The service was well led. Improved quality assurance systems had been introduced to assess, monitor and improve the safety of the services provided and to measure the service's compliance with the fundamental standards.

Staff were happy working at the service and there was a good team spirit. They felt supported by management and felt the training and support they received helped them to do their job well.

Local community professionals felt the service delivered good quality care and worked well in partnership with them.