You are here

Archived: 1 Hamilton Road Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 15 December 2016

During a routine inspection

1 Hamilton Road is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to two people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder.

We inspected the home on 15 December 2016. The inspection was announced 24 hours in advance because the service was a small care home for younger adults who may be out during the day. There were two people living in the home at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with 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 were cared for by staff in ways that met their needs and maintained their dignity and respect. Staff understood how to identify, report and manage any concerns related to people’s safety and welfare. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from harm, including how medicines were managed.

Safe recruitment practices were followed and appropriate checks had been undertaken, which made sure only suitable staff were employed to care for people in the home. There were sufficient numbers of experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

Staff were supported to provide appropriate care to people because they were trained, supervised and appraised. There was an induction, training and development programme, which supported staff to gain relevant knowledge and skills.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which apply to care homes. Where people’s liberty or freedoms were at risk of being restricted, the proper authorisations were in place.

People and their relatives or representatives were involved in planning the care and support provided by the service. Staff listened to people and understood and respected their needs. Staff reflected people’s wishes and preferences in the way they delivered care. They understood the issues involved in supporting people who had lost capacity to make some decisions.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs and to make informed choices about what they ate. Staff ensured people obtained advice and support from other health professionals to maintain and improve their health or when their needs changed.

The service was responsive to people’s needs and there were systems in place to help ensure any concerns or complaints were responded to appropriately. People were encouraged and supported to engage in activities they were interested in.

There was a friendly atmosphere in the home and staff supported people in a kind and caring way that took account of their individual needs and preferences. The staff and management team shared common values about the purpose of the service.

The registered manager demonstrated an open management style and provided leadership to the staff team. There was a range of systems in place to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service and to ensure people were receiving appropriate support.

Inspection carried out on 10 September 2014

During a routine inspection

We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions. Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service because the people had complex needs which meant they were not always able to tell us their experiences. During our inspection we spoke with two advocates, a relative of one person and three members of staff. We observed interactions between staff and people using the service. There was an acting manager in post on the day of our inspection as the registered manager was undertaking a secondment.

Hamilton Road comprised two self-contained apartments, adapted for people’s individual needs and offices and other rooms used for storage and administration.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

Risks to people’s safety and welfare were identified and plans had been put in place to manage them.

Recruitment practice was robust, two references, a full employment history and a Disclosure and Barring (DBS) check were carried out before staff were employed.

There were arrangements in place for the safe administration and storage of medicines.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) which applies to care homes. We found there were proper policies and procedures in place and relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. DOLS arrangements were in place and appropriate applications had been made. A DOLS advocate regularly visited one person who used the service.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed. Advocates told us and we observed that people received the care they needed.

Where people lacked capacity to make decisions about their care, mental capacity assessments were carried out and documented. We found evidence that decisions in people’s best interests had been documented. This meant that the service complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Is the service caring?

People using the service were able to communicate in a limited way. We observed staff interacting with people using the service, in specific ways unique to the individual and people responded in a positive way. We spoke with two advocates who were positive about the service. One advocate said “I think (my client) is well looked after, staff are kind and friendly to (my client) and I don’t sense any fear or unhappiness.” A relative told us "I feel they are doing their best for (my relative), I feel they are meeting (their) needs."

The service made every attempt to identify and respond to feedback from people using the service. The service also worked with people to incorporate positive risk taking into care planning in order to enhance the life of people using the service.

People’s beliefs and preferences had been identified using various techniques and these were respected by staff.

Is the service responsive?

The provider had responded to people’s individual needs to develop care plans which met very specific complex needs. These were reviewed every two months to ensure they reflected people’s current needs.

Debriefs were held after every incident in order to identify learning and anything which could have been done differently.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system in place which included regular audits which were carried out internally and by managers from other services operated by the same provider.

Inspection carried out on 17 December 2013

During a routine inspection

1 Hamilton Road had two people living there. The people living in the accommodation had been assessed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Due the nature of their disabilities we were unable to gather their views on the outcomes, however one person was able to respond with a thumbs up and smile when we asked them if they liked their home. People looked happy and relaxed in the presence of staff. The registered manager told us that one of the people had lived in the home for over eighteen years and the other person had been living at the home for the last six weeks.

We looked around the home which was two self-contained flats. We saw that the flats were clean, free from unpleasant odours and suitably furnished to meet the needs of the individual’s living there. We saw that in one of the flats the individuals art work was on display in their activities rooms, and that Christmas decorations and a tree which the individual had made was on display in their lounge.

We also spoke with two staff including the registered manager. We spent time observing how staff interacted and supported people. We saw staff treated people in a sensitive, respectful and professional manner and involved individuals in the running of the home.

Inspection carried out on 16 January 2013

During a routine inspection

During the visit we observed how people spent their time, the support they received from staff and whether they had positive outcomes. We also spoke to the staff and healthcare professionals who were involved in the care and support of both of these people.

We found that people were supported and staff spent time assisting people and were aware of their needs. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and the support they needed. They talked to us about the progress that people had made since coming to the service. We found that the staff were respectful and courteous when speaking and supporting people. The care plans were detailed and reflected people’s needs and how these would be met by the staff.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the management of people’s medicines. There were equipment in place to support people to maintain their mobility and independence. We saw that people were supported to eat and drink and choices were offered and respected.

People were supported to be part of the local community and undertook community based activities. People had access to healthcare professionals and treatment as needed. There was a recruitment process that was followed and all necessary staff checks were carried out. There was an internal audit that looked at the service provision including health and safety at the home.