Our current view of the service
Updated
9 January 2025
Date of Assessment: 28 January to 14 February 2025. The service is a care home providing support for up to 5 younger adults with learning disabilities. At the time of the assessment there were 5 people using this service. This assessment was carried out to provide the service with a rating in all key questions and overall. We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found 3 breaches of regulations in relation to safeguarding, safe environments and good governance. People’s care and support was not always person-centred. People were living with restrictions which had not always been authorised through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards process. In addition, the service failed to consistently review and reduce restrictive practices in a timely manner. People’s engagement with activities and the local community was at times restricted due to insufficient staffing and inconsistent availability of drivers. People’s environments were not always cleaned safely and thoroughly due to being poorly maintained. Governance systems were not always used effectively in assessing, monitoring and driving improvement where needed. Some records seen were not person-centred and legible. Staff were not recording people’s fluid monitoring consistently so that action could be taken to mitigate risks if needed. Medicines were being managed safely. Staff were only recruited once all pre-employment checks had been completed. New staff had an induction and refresher training when required. Staff worked with healthcare professionals to make sure people’s health needs were met.
People's experience of the service
Updated
9 January 2025
Some relatives shared feedback that there appeared to be staffing shortages at times and a lack of drivers. This meant people were not always able to go out of the service. Comments included, “Staffing levels are a problem every now and again. Every time I go in, I speak to different staff. Some are good but there is no consistency. Some staff can't drive so [person] can't go out. [Person] does spend a lot of time in [their] flat alone” and “It is all about the calibre of the staff. It is getting better, and staff are good, but it is short of staff sometimes at the weekend. [Person] spends a lot of time in [their] room. I think it is because there are not enough confident staff to take [person] out.”
People at the service were not able to share their views with us so we spent time observing interactions and spoke with people’s relatives. Overall people’s relatives told us the service was safe. Comments from relatives included, “[Person] is in a safe place, and they run most things past us”, “[Person] is in a safe place” and “[Person] is happy, and I don't have any concerns. I am happy with everything.”
Relatives told us staff contacted them with any updates or information about health appointments. Comments from relatives included, “They [staff] give me updates and ring me with all the outcomes from appointments” and “I have a call from staff every evening to let me know what sort of a day [person] has had. I request to see records and I get a weekly email.”
Relatives said management were approachable and responsive. Comments included, “The manager is good, she is quite dynamic, and very approachable”, “The manager is great kind and professional. If I had any concerns, I could approach her” and “Communication is excellent. [Registered manager] replies and responds quickly. She knows what she is doing and has a plan for everyone. It's well organised and she has high standards for her staff.”