You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 January 2017

This inspection took place on 30 June 2016 and was unannounced.

21 Shirlett Close provides residential care for up to four people who have learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. The service is a single story building, with bedrooms and communal areas located on the ground floor. At the time of our inspection visit four people used the service.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

Relatives told us 21 Shirlett Close was a safe place to live and people were well cared for. People were supported by staff who knew how to keep people safe and were aware of how to report any safeguarding concerns. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were assessed and staff were informed of how to minimise any identified risks. People received their medicines as prescribed from staff who had received training to do this safely and who had regular checks of their competencies.

There were enough staff to support people who lived in the home and they were available at the times people needed them. When staff were recruited to work at the home checks were carried out to ensure their suitability to work with people who lived there. Staff received training so that they had the skills and knowledge of how to meet the specific needs of people who lived at the home. Staff supported people to maintain their health and made referrals to healthcare professionals when needed.

People were supported in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. The manager understood the importance of applying for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) when necessary. Staff ensured they maintained people’s privacy and dignity, and treated people with compassion and respect.

People’s preferences were considered in all aspects of care they received. People were offered a choice of meals based on their preferences and dietary requirements. People were supported to pursue their individual hobbies and interests and to maintain relationships with people who were important to them.

People and relatives knew who the registered manager was and told us that they were approachable. Staff told us that they felt supported by the registered manager. People and their relatives knew how to raise complaints and were confident that the registered manager would take actions in response to these.

The registered manager and provider monitored the quality and safety of the service provided and actions were taken to drive forward improvements at the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 January 2017

This service was safe.

Staff were aware of how to identify risks to people and took actions to reduce these risks. People who lived at the home told us that they felt safe. People were given their medicines safely and as prescribed. Staff were available at the times people needed them.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 January 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received training to ensure they had the relevant skills and knowledge to support people who lived at the home. Staff had a good understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported to eat a nutritional diet based on their needs and preferences and people’s health care needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 January 2017

The service was caring.

Staff communicated to people in a caring manner. People received care that was appropriate for their needs. People were involved in the planning and delivery of their care. People were supported to maintain relationships with people important to them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 January 2017

The service was responsive.

Staff knew, and responded to people’s individual preferences. Activities were offered which were tailored to people's interests. No complaints had been received; however, people knew how to make a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 January 2017

The service was well-led.

People who lived in the home, relatives and staff were asked to provide their feedback of the service which was acted on. Staff felt supported by the management team. The provider had quality assurance systems in place to support them in maintaining a good quality of care for people who lived at the home.