Archived: Kimberley House

People’s experience of using this service: People told us they were happy and felt staff had an excellent understanding of their needs and preferences. Staff listened to what they wanted and acted quickly to support them to achieve their goals and aspirations. Staff were innovative and looked to offer people solutions to aid their independence and develop their skills. Use of technology had supported people to maintain their safety and to be involved in their care.

People were very well supported with their communication needs. All staff could communicate through British Sign Language (BSL) or were working towards this. People told us they felt they were always able to communicate their needs to staff.

Excellent support was provided to people when they felt anxious or distressed. Staff used up to date best practice to intervene in the least restrictive and positive way. This approach had fostered very trusting relationships between staff and the people they supported. People’s anxiety had reduced and their participation in a meaningful life had increased because of this.

People had good community networks which were personal to them. This included supporting people to use technology to connect with family and friends. People had been supported to develop and maintain positive relationships with friends and family.

Staff were well trained and skilled. They worked with people to overcome challenges and promote their independence in every area of their life. The emphasis of support was towards enabling people. Staff encouraged positive risk taking so people could experience new things and develop. This had led to people feeling fulfilled and living an active life.

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.

The registered manager and staff team worked together in a positive way to support people to achieve their own goals and to be safe. Checks of safety and quality were made to ensure people were protected. Work to continuously improve was noted and the registered manager was keen to make changes that would impact positively on people’s lives.

The values of the organisation of offering choice, inclusion and respect were embedded. This supported people to receive the positive service described. The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

For more details please see the full report on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection: Good (published 28 September 2016)

Why we inspected: This inspection was a scheduled inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

Kimberley House offers accommodation and support for up to three younger adults who are deaf or have other communication difficulties. The service is based in a converted house in the village of Kirk Smeaton. At the time of our inspection three people were using the service. The service registered with the Commission in 2013, but had been dormant for most of 2015. People started using the service again in November 2015.

The service had a registered manager. 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 told us the service kept them safe. Risks to people were assessed and plans put in place to reduce the chances of them occurring. Regular checks were made of the premises and equipment to ensure they were safe.

Accidents and incidents were investigated and monitored to see if steps could be taken to reduce the chances of them happening again. Plans were in place to support people in emergency situations.

Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place to protect from abuse. People’s medicines were managed safely and they received them when needed. Staffing levels were monitored to ensure they were sufficient to provide safe support, and recruitment procedures were in place to minimise the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.

Staff received the training they needed to support people effectively, including newly recruited staff. Staff were supported through monthly supervisions, and plans were in place to conduct appraisals once staff had been in place for 12 months.

Procedures were in place to protect people’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and staff applied its principles when supporting people. People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and to access external professionals to maintain and promote their health.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the care and support they received from staff. People told us the service met their needs and they were happy living there.

People and staff clearly knew each other very well, which meant support was delivered in a professional but friendly way. Procedures were in place to arrange advocacy support where this was needed.

Care and support was based on people’s assessed needs and preferences. People told us they were involved in decisions taken about their care. Plans were produced in an easy read format and contained records of discussions between staff and the people they related to ensure people understood what was in them.

People were supported to access activities that interested them and that they were able to choose what they wanted to do themselves. People and their relatives said they would know how to complaint if this was needed.

Staff spoke positively about the culture and values of the service and said they were supported by the registered manager and deputy manager. The registered manager and deputy manager carried out a range of quality assurance checks to monitor and improve standards at the service. Feedback was sought from people using the service and staff.