The inspection took place on 31 August 2016 and was unannounced. Omega Elifar Limited - 53 Churchfields is registered to provide accommodation and support to four people with a learning disability or who may experience autism. At the time of the inspection there were four people living there, although one person was away from the service during the inspection. Throughout this report the service will be referred to as 53 Churchfields.The service had a registered manager. 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.
Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their role and responsibility to keep people safe from the risk of abuse; staff had access to relevant safeguarding guidance.
Risks to people had been identified within their care plans and measures were in place to manage these safely for people. Staff understood the potential risks to people and how to manage these to ensure their safety.
People were cared for by a sufficient number of staff to keep them safe and meet their individual needs. Staff had undergone the required pre-employment checks to ensure their suitability for their role.
People’s medicines were administered safely by competent staff who followed the provider’s guidance in relation to the safe management of medicines.
Staff had received an induction into their role and underwent ongoing training. They were provided with opportunities for professional development. Staff received regular supervision. People were cared for by staff who were supported in their role.
People’s consent was sought by staff for their day to day care. Where people lacked the capacity to make specific decisions staff had followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Three people were subject to DoLS authorisations. People’s human rights were protected as decisions made on their behalf met legal requirements.
People were adequately supported to ensure they received enough to eat and drink. People were supported to make informed choices about their meals. Meal times were a pleasant experience for people.
Staff ensured people received an annual review of their health with their GP and had a resulting action plan to ensure their health care needs were met. People were supported to access a range of healthcare professionals as required in order to maintain good health.
People experienced positive, supportive relationships with the staff who cared for them. A person told us “It’s good” and “Staff are nice.” Relatives confirmed staff were caring towards people. Staff spent time with people engaging them on topics that they knew interested the person.
People were continually consulted by staff about decisions that related to their care and environment. Staff understood people’s communication and behavioural needs and took these into account when supporting them to make decisions.
Staff treated people with respect and dignity. People’s rights to privacy were respected and balanced with the need to ensure their personal safety.
Staff had a thorough knowledge and understanding of each person’s care needs, preferences, likes and dislikes. People had comprehensive care plans that were responsive to their needs. People were supported to participate in a range of activities both within the service and the local community to meet their social care needs.
A relative told us “The manager takes action on any issues.” A copy of the complaints policy was available for people in a pictorial format. No complaints had been received about the service but processes were in place to enable people to make a complaint if they needed to.
The organisation’s values were embedded within the service and staff practice. Processes were in place to enable staff to raise any issues.
A person’s relative told us “The manager is extremely good” and “Very approachable.” Staff also felt well supported by the manager whom they found to be approachable and supportive. The registered manager spent time working alongside staff which enabled them to monitor the quality of the service people received.
Processes were in place to regularly monitor the quality of the service provided. The operations manager visited the service regularly and provided the registered manager with a written report following each visit of their findings and any actions required to improve the quality of the service for people. There were systems in place to regularly update the provider on the quality of care and to drive improvements to the service for people.