Archived: North Ormesby Road

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. We received positive feedback about the leadership and management of the service. Staff told us they received the training and support they required to give them the skills and knowledge they needed for their role. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Recruitment policies minimised the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.

Risk assessments were in place to help reduce risks to people. The service also had a range of environmental risk assessments. Staff knew how to safeguard vulnerable adults. They were aware of the action they should take if they had any concerns. The service had systems in place to ensure people were supported with managing their medicines. Health and safety checks were carried out in relation to the communal areas of the premises.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were encouraged to join in with group activities and events but if they chose not to do so this was respected.

People were supported to maintain their health and access healthcare services when needed. Support plans contained clear information about people’s healthcare needs. People’s independence was promoted. Staff encouraged people to maintain and develop their daily living skills in preparation for them moving on to a more independent living situation. Staff respected people’s rights and maintained their privacy. People told us staff were caring. People’s diverse needs were understood and respected.

Support was planned and delivered based upon people’s support needs and preferences. Support plans were up to date and were regularly reviewed. Staff knew the people they were supporting well.

The service had good links with the local community. People accessed a range of community and leisure facilities.

People and their relatives told us they knew how to complain if it was needed. A quality assurance system in place to monitor the quality of the service and make improvements where required.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection took place on 22 and 29 June 2016 by one inspector. The first day of our inspection was unannounced. We last inspected the service in April 2014; this was a follow up inspection where we looked at the management of records. We found the provider to be compliant in this area.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 detailed safeguarding and whistleblowing policies in place which provided information about how to recognise the signs of abuse, and how to respond to any concerns people had.

Individual risk assessments were in place to support people with promoting their independence and safety. In addition to individual risk assessments, the service also had a range of environmental risk assessments. Regular health and safety checks had been carried out in relation to the communal areas of the premises to support with promoting a safe and clean environment. People were supported to carry out health and safety checks within their own flats.

Records within staff files demonstrated proper recruitment checks were being carried out. These checks include employment and reference checks, identity checks and a disclosure and barring service check (DBS). A DBS check is a report which details any offences which may prevent the person from working with vulnerable people. They help providers make safer recruitment decisions. Staff were supported with regular training opportunities that linked to the care and support needs of people living in the service.

The service had safe systems in place to ensure people were supported with managing their medicines appropriately.

The manager and staff were aware of their responsibilities relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and to report on what we find. MCA is a law that protects and supports people who do not have ability to make their own decisions and to ensure decisions are made in their ‘best interests’. People using the service had capacity and were supported with decision making. Assessment information was in place to identify any risk associated with people’s specific health related needs.

People were supported with promoting their health and nutrition. Staff helped people to develop and build upon their meal preparation and cooking skills.

People who lived at the service told us staff were caring and kind. We observed positive staff interactions during our inspection and the people were comfortable asking staff for support. Staff encouraged people to be involved with communal activities but respected their decision if they did not want to participate.

People’s support plans were specific and centred around their individualised support needs. There were a range of assessments in place which demonstrated a balance between promoting individual choice, independence and inclusion and keeping people safe. Support plans were up to date and were regularly evaluated .Staff knew people and were knowledgeable about people’s care and support needs.

People living in the service were provided with information to support them to raise any concerns or complaints they may have. People who lived at the service told us the registered manager and staff were approachable.

The service had a quality assurance system which included a range of internal checks and audits to support continuous improvement. Action plans were put in place to address any shortfalls in service provision and to demonstrate how areas of improvement were addressed.

During the inspection we looked at the care records for two people who used the service. We found that records within the service were accurate, reviewed regularly and easily accessible to staff, thus ensuring that people received appropriate care and support.

We spoke with one person who used the service. They told us they were very satisfied with the service they received and were provided with the support they needed. They told us, "Staff are very supportive, they are there for you when you need them."

We found that people gave consent for different aspects of their care and were able to make their own day to day decisions and lifestyle choices.

We observed staff interacting well with people and supporting them. We found that people had their needs assessed and support plans were in place.

Staff received appropriate training and had regular supervision and appraisals.

The quality of the service was monitored and reviewed on a regular basis.

We found that support records were not always completed correctly and it was not easy to locate information in them.

We spoke with three people who use the services. All the people we spoke with were very satisfied with the service they received.

The people we spoke with confirmed that they had been involved in discussions about their care and support needs. They said that they were provided with the care they needed. One person said, "The staff are lovely." Another person said 'I have a key worker who helps me.'

All the people we spoke with knew they had a care file and told us their views were taken into account in the assessment and care planning process.

People told us they were able to make their own day to day decisions and lifestyle choices and they maintained contact with their friends and family where possible.

All people spoken with said they were treated with dignity and respect by the staff.

There were appropriate arrangements in place for the recruitment of staff.

We saw there was a complaints procedure in place and this was accessible to people.