You are here

This service was previously managed by a different provider - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

This was an announced inspection, which took place on 7, 8 and 13 June 2016. The inspection was an announced and part of the wider trust inspection of Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust. Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust is registered to provide mental health and community services to people who live in Bury Oldham and Rochdale. The Trust also provides mental health services in Stockport, Tameside and Glossop as well as community services in Trafford.

We had previously carried out an inspection in February 2013 of Cambeck Close short breaks scheme when we found the service had complied with all the regulations we reviewed.

Cambeck Close provides an overnight accommodation short break service to children and adults who live in Bury, who have a severe learning disability and complex healthcare needs and may have behaviour that challenges the service. Personal and nursing care support was provided. Children and Adults are accommodated separately in two three bedded adapted bungalows. At the time of our visit, 22 children and 20 adults were accessing the short breaks scheme and were allocated overnight stays throughout the year.

The service also provides personal care services to adults with learning disabilities in their own home. This arrangement is called ‘supported living’ because people are supported to live often in groups, in properties, which are provided by a housing association or other landlord. At the time of our inspection, the service provided 24 hour support to eleven people in four properties, in the Bury area. At the time of our visit to the short breaks scheme, two children and one adult were staying at the service. We also visited two of the four supported living houses were six people lived.

There was a registered manager in place at the service. 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 who were able told us that they felt safe at the service. Staff we spoke with told us that they had received training in safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. They knew what action to take if they had any concerns about a person being at risk of harm or poor practice.

Recruitment processes in the service were sufficiently robust to help ensure the protection of vulnerable people from the risks of unsuitable applicants being recruited.

We saw that there were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs. No outside agency staff were used by the services. This meant that people who used the service received consistent support from a staff team who knew them well.

There were systems in place to ensure the safe administration of medicines and effective infection control practices. Staff had received the training they needed to support people safely and effectively.

We saw that the premises we visited were user friendly. They were well maintained, homely, brightly decorated and adapted to meet the needs of people with disabilities.

People told us and we saw that they were encouraged to eat healthily.

People had the access they needed to health and social care professionals.

The atmosphere in the services was relaxed and friendly and there was a good rapport between people who used the service and the staff supporting them.

We saw that those who used the services had person centred care records, which included easy read formats and photographs that helped people to be involved.

People had access to a range of activities that met their individual needs and were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

All the people we spoke with told us the registered manager and all the staff were approachable and would always listen and respond if they raised any concerns.

During this inspection, we contacted the

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

The service was safe.

Staff were trained in safeguarding children and adults and were aware of how to identify and respond to allegations and signs of abuse. Staff were aware of their responsibilities for reporting poor practice and how to raise any concerns.

Recruitment processes were sufficiently robust to protect people from the risk of being cared for by unsuitable staff. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs.

Following a recent and on-going review, safe systems were in place for the management and administration of medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

The service was effective.

Prior to a service being offered an assessment was undertaken so that the service could be sure they could meet people’s needs.

People received support from a staff team who had received the induction, training, support and supervision they required to be able to deliver effective care.

People were supported to eat and drink healthily.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

The service was caring.

The atmosphere in the services was relaxed and friendly and there was a good rapport between people who used the service and the staff supporting them.

The supported living service made every effort to keep people in their own homes for as long as possible so that they could stay with people and staff that knew them well.

Responsive

Outstanding

Updated 1 December 2016

The service was responsive.

People, where able, chose how they spent their time and could access a wide range of activities.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible. They had busy lifestyles and used local facilities.

Where appropriate, the service took a key role in the local community and was actively involved in building further links.

Systems were in place for people and their relatives to raise concerns or make suggestions about ways to improve the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

The service was well led.

Regular meetings took place between managers and staff so that any issues could be resolved or ideas for improvements to the service could be shared.

A range of systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.