Archived: Penk Ridge 26

Penk Ridge 26 is a residential care home for three younger adults with complex autism. At the time of our inspection two people were living at this service. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated Good

People were protected against the risk of potential abuse. Staff had the knowledge to identify safeguarding concerns and risks to people’s health and wellbeing and acted on these to keep people safe.

People were supported by sufficient, consistent and familiar staff who knew people well and completed training in order to meet people’s needs effectively.

Procedures were in place and followed to safely support people with their medicines, prevent the risk of infection and to keep people safe in an emergency situation.

Incidents and accidents were recorded and monitored to keep people safe and prevent a reoccurrence.

Staff were supported in their role through training, supervision and team meetings. Current guidance and best practice information was used to support staff to deliver effective care.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. People received healthcare support as required. The service worked with other healthcare professionals to plan effective care and support and achieve positive outcomes for people.

Staff understood the value of building positive relationships with people and responded to people’s individual and diverse needs in a kind and compassionate way. People were treated with dignity and respect and were supported to take part in decisions about their care and treatment using their preferred methods of communication.

People’s care and support needs were assessed and person centred care plans were developed to meet people’s needs. People were supported to follow their interests, take part in social activities and maintain their important relationships and independence as far as possible.

A procedure was in place to ensure any complaints received were managed appropriately. Staff understood how people may express dissatisfaction and acted to address any issues for people.

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of service being delivered and the running of the home. The provider and registered manager promoted an open and inclusive learning culture which focused on delivering person centred and responsive care for people.

26 Penk Ridge is a service managed by Community Integrated Care and provides accommodation and personal care for up to three young people with complex autism and behaviours that challenge.

26 Penk Ridge is located in a residential area, has four bedrooms, one of which is used for staff to sleep over night, a lounge/diner, kitchen, communal washroom facilities, one bathroom and an activity room. At the time of this inspection there were three young people living at the home. There were eight permanent staff, which included one senior support worker. The service also used bank staff that were employed by the provider and known to people living at the home.

People were safe at the service. Staff knew how to keep people safe from harm and had a good understanding of how to report safeguarding concerns. Safeguarding concerns were raised to the local authority and management plans had been put into place to protect people from the risk of harm. People’s finances were managed safely.

Different types of risk assessments were in place for each person and risk management plans were implemented to ensure people and those around them were supported to stay safe. The service did not use restraint. Fire safety procedures were in place for the home and were followed to keep people safe.

There were sufficient staffing levels at the home, which were flexible to meet people’s needs. Safe recruitment and medicine practices were followed.

Staff were experienced and knew people well. Staff received induction training in line with the Care Certificate when starting work at the home. Staff received regular supervision and one to one sessions.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and how to put this into practice.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and meal times were flexible to meet people’s needs. People regularly accessed healthcare services.

The service was caring and people experienced care that was compassionate. Staff treated people as individuals and encouraged them to do as much for themselves as possible. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People received the care and support they needed, were listened to and had their choices respected. A variety of communication techniques were used to ensure people were engaged with and involved in making decisions about the support they wanted. People’s needs were regularly assessed and reviewed. Activities were personalised and meaningful.

People were given the information to tell them how to complain. Complaints had not been received about the service in the past 12 months.

There were clear visions and values in place and good leadership at the home. Quality audits were completed which supported the registered manager and senior managers to assess the overall quality of the home.