Respite Service

Updated 31 May 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014. It was also planned to check whether the provider had taken action to meet the requirement notices made at the last inspection.

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 in the building during the day. We needed to make sure someone would be in the office. We were assisted on the day of our inspection by the service manager.

Before the inspection the service completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at the PIR, the last inspection report and all the information we had collected about the service. This included any notifications the service had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law.

We spoke with the service manager. We sought feedback on the service provided from three relatives, six community professionals and four members of staff. We received responses from one relative, two professionals and four members of the care staff team. There had been no people staying at the service since April 2017 and no people were available for us to speak with. However, we saw feedback they had given to staff at the end of their last respite stays.

We looked at two people's care plans, daily records and medication administration records. We also looked at staff training and supervision records. We saw a number of other documents relating to the management of the service. For example, the fire risk assessment, legionella risk assessment, improvement action plans, quality audit reports, concerns and compliments records and staff meeting minutes.

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 individualised to their personal preferences and needs. They were encouraged to do things for themselves and staff helped them to be as independent as they could be. Staff recognised and responded promptly to changes in the needs of people who use the service.

People's rights to make their own decisions, where possible, were protected and staff were aware of their responsibilities to ensure people's rights to make their own decisions were promoted. 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.

There were safe medicines administration systems in place so that people received their medicines when required. New medication storage arrangements had been introduced with the purchase and fitting of a medicines cupboard that met the current requirements. People's health and wellbeing was monitored and prompt action was taken to deal with any problems as needed.

People benefitted from staying at a service that had an open and friendly culture. People

enjoyed staying at the service and feedback was seen that confirmed people enjoyed their respite stays. Staff told us the management was open with them and communicated what was happening at the service and with the people who came to stay.