You are here

Archived: Airport Road Good

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 February 2017

We carried out this inspection on 8 January 2017 and it was announced 48 hours beforehand to ensure that staff and records would be available during the inspection. When Airport Road was last inspected in January 2015 there were no breaches of the legal requirements identified.

The service provides accommodation and personal care for short break respite care for six people who have a learning disability. The service accommodates a maximum of two people at any given time. On the day of our inspection there was one person using the service.

The service has 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.

The provider had quality monitoring systems in place which were used to bring about improvements to the service. These had been fully effective in identifying the issues in relation to best interest decisions.

The staff had a clear knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These safeguards aim to protect people living in care homes from being inappropriately deprived of their liberty. These safeguards can only be used when a person lacks the mental capacity to make certain decisions and there is no other way of supporting the person safely. We have made a recommendation around how the service records people’s best interest decisions and their mental capacity assessments for people.

There were processes in place for the safe storage and management of medicines.

The staff had received training regarding how to keep people safe and they were aware of the service safeguarding and whistle-blowing policy and procedures. Staffing was arranged in a flexible way to respond to people’s individual needs.

People were provided with regular opportunities to express their needs, wishes and preferences regarding how they lived their daily lives.

Each person was supported to access and attend a range of social activities. People were supported by the staff to use the local community facilities and had been supported to develop skills which promoted their independence.

People’s needs were regularly assessed and resulting support plans provided guidance to staff on how people were to be supported. Support in planning people’s care and support was personalised to reflect people’s preferences and personalities.

There was a robust staff recruitment process in operation designed to employ staff that would have or be able to develop the skills to keep people safe and support people to meet their needs.

Staff demonstrated a detailed knowledge of people’s needs and had received training to support people to be safe and respond to their support needs.

Staff respected people’s privacy and we saw staff working with people in a kind and compassionate way responding to their needs.

There was a complaints procedure for people, families and friends to use and compliments could also be recorded.

We saw that the service took time to work with and understand people’s individual way of communicating in order that the service staff could respond appropriately to the person.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 February 2017

The service was safe.

There were processes in place to ensure the safe management of medicines.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. The service had provided staff with safeguarding training and had a policy and procedure which advised staff what to do in the event of any concerns.

Risks had been identified to people’s well-being and steps taken which were recorded to support people to live their lives as they wished

The service had safe and effective recruitment systems in place.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 22 February 2017

The service was mostly effective.

The service had met the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. We have made a recommendation in relation to how mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were recorded.

There was a staff induction procedure in place and staff received regular supervision and training.

DoLS applications had been made for people when they had required them.

People were involved in planning how to meet their nutrition needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 February 2017

The service was caring.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected. People and staff got on well together and the atmosphere in the service was caring, warm and friendly.

Staff understood people’s needs and preferences.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 February 2017

The service was responsive

People and their families had been involved in recognising their needs and the planning of how support was to be provided to them. Each person had their own detailed personalised care plan.

The service supported people to access the local community and activities of their choice.

The service had a robust complaints procedure.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 February 2017

The service was well-led.

There was a range of quality and safety monitoring systems in place. These had been effective in identifying all areas for improvement.

The manager and senior staff were approachable; people and staff felt supported