Background to this inspection
Updated
6 September 2019
The inspection
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team
This inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Service and service type
Sense 5 Seafield Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection
This inspection was unannounced.
What we did before the inspection
We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all this information to plan our inspection.
During the inspection
During the inspection we met all six people who lived at the home. None of the people we met could converse with us, so we observed interactions between people and staff in communal areas. We looked at two people's care records and at their medicine administration records. After the inspection, we contacted those people’s relatives, spoke by telephone to one relative and received e mail feedback from another.
We spoke with the registered manager and five members of staff. We looked at systems for recruitment, supervision, appraisal and at staff training records. We also looked at quality monitoring records relating to the management of the service. We sought feedback from commissioners, and health and social care professionals who worked with staff at the home. We received a response from two of them.
The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or who might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.
As part of the thematic review, we carried out a survey with the registered manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people.
The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way. No restrictive intervention practices were used.
Updated
6 September 2019
About the service
Sense 5 Seafield Road is a care home providing personal care and accommodation to six deaf blind people who also have a learning disability.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service had a strong, visible, person centred culture. Relatives and professionals praised staff and described them as exceptionally caring and compassionate. People and staff had built strong relationships, cared about each other and enjoyed spending time together. There was a happy atmosphere with lots of good humour. Staff were proud of people and celebrated their achievements. A relative captured the feedback we received from relatives and professionals when they said, “I would not hesitate to recommend Seafield Road as a place for others with learning and sensory disabilities.”
Staff supported and upheld people’s rights and advocated on their behalf. They were exceptionally skilled at communicating and involving people in decision making. People were supported to express their views, in ways relevant to their communication needs. People’s care was organised around their individual needs. Staff promoted people to be as independent as possible and upheld their right to privacy.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
People received effective care and consistent support from experienced staff with the right skills to meet their needs. Staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing and worked with other professionals to make sure people received the treatment they required.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People received personalised care to meet their needs. They took part in activities and pursued their hobbies and interests. People enjoyed a variety of social activities which included in house activities, trips out, social events, holidays and family visits.
People were protected from abuse by staff who were aware of the different types of abuse, and ways to protect people. People received their medicines safely and on time.
The service was well-led by the registered manager and their deputy. The culture was open and promoted person centred values. People, relatives and staff views were sought and taken into account in how the service was run. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided and made improvements in response to their findings.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection: The last rating for this service was Good (Report published 14 February 2017.) At this inspection the rating has remained the same.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.