You are here

Archived: 4 Piggy Lane Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 August 2015

We inspected 4 Piggy Lane on 16 June 2015. 4 Piggy Lane is a service providing a home for people with profound learning and or physical disabilities. The service is provided in two bungalows. One at 4 Piggy Lane and one at 8 Piggy Lane. Each can provide accommodation, care and support for five people.

At the last inspection on 22 September 2015 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements in relations to their records. Records were always accurate or robust in ensuring people’s needs were understood or monitored effectively. The provider sent us an action plan stating they would have met the desired standard by December 2014. At this inspection we found that improvement had been made but improvement was still required.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 service had systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. However, there was not always enough detail provided to show how effective these systems were. These systems had also not identified the areas for improvement found on this inspection.

People’s decision making was supported by an adherence to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) (2005). The MCA is a legal framework that ensures people’s ability to make their own choices is adhered to. However, evidence of people’s capacity being assessed was not always on people’s care records regarding areas where decisions were being made for them.

The were positive relationships between people and staff and we observed a number of caring interactions. People were supported to communicate using communication passports designed with staff and with the involvement of people. 

People’s needs were clearly documented and risks associated with those needs were recorded along with guidance for staff to follow. There were enough suitably qualified staff to meet people’s needs. Staff received effective support and training to carry out their roles. Staff also had access to relevant training along with further opportunities to develop professionally.

Staff were described as caring and these descriptions matched our observations of staff who demonstrated a positive relationship with the people they supported. People’s needs were assessed and regularly reviewed. When people’s needs changed the service responded. The service also responded to complaints and concerns appropriately and in line with the services policy.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 August 2015

The service was safe.

Risk associated with people’s needs were documented in a way that meant staff could meet people’s needs safely.

There were sufficient numbers of suitability qualified skilled and experienced staff.

People were protected from the risk of abuse as staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and people’s medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 August 2015

The service was effective.

People’s decision making was supported by an adherence to the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

People were supported by staff who used their stated communication strategies effectively.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisal along with relevant and specialist training.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 August 2015

The service was caring.

We observed caring relationships between staff and the people they supported.

People were supported to access advocacy services to support their well-being.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 August 2015

The service was responsive.

When people’s needs changed the service responded appropriately. People’s needs were assessed and reviewed.

People had access to a range of activities and were also encouraged to try new experiences.

Complaints and concerns were raised and managed with satisfactory outcomes.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 7 August 2015

The service was not always well led.

The service had a system in pace to monitor the quality and safety of the service but this was not always effective or detailed enough to evidence its impact on the overall improvement of the service.

Records relating to various aspects of the service were not always completed correctly or in a way that evidence positive practise that was occurring.

Relatives and staff spoke highly of the leadership and the improving culture of involvement and willingness to obtain people’s views.

Staff were clear on the vision for the service and felt able to contribute.