Archived: United Response - 61 Adkin Way

There was a registered area manager 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.

People received good quality care that was responsive to their individual preferences and needs. The service was small and this assisted people receiving individual person centred care. Staff had taken the time to find out what was important to people and ensured that wherever possible people were able to undertake activities they had chosen. Staff showed a good understanding of and appropriate responses to people’s needs and preferences. Relatives described a good and effective staff team that were able to support individuals to get the most out of their lives. It was evident that people passed their time in the way they chose and wherever possible were given opportunities to increase their independence by a service with a positive view on risk taking.

The registered area manager and staff understood what to do if they suspected someone was being abused or harmed. Recruitment practices were robust and contributed to protecting people from staff who were unsuitable to work in adult social care. Medicines were managed and stored safely so that people received their medicines as prescribed. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

Staff had received a wide range of training so that they had a good understanding of how to meet people’s needs. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA provides a legal framework to assess people’s capacity to make certain decisions, at a certain time. Staff were clear about the importance of gaining consent from people.

People participated in all the stages of choosing, planning and the preparation of their meals. People were given guidance and reassurance if they needed it to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Staff made sure that if people became unwell, they were supported to access healthcare professionals for treatment and advice about their health and welfare.

People received care and respect from staff who valued people in a way that respected them as individuals. Staff were respectful of people’s privacy and dignity.

There were systems in place to manage complaints but none had been received over the past year. The complaints procedure was produced in a format people could easily understand. Relatives told us that they had not needed to make a complaint and would discuss with management if they had any concerns which would hopefully avoid a complaint.

The service was well led by a registered manager who people, relatives and staff were confident in. The management was responsible for monitoring the quality and safety of the service, and had done so consistently.

We again inspected the home on 12 December 2013 to judge whether improvements had been made to ensure that people were appropriately supported to make decisions. We found that the home had made significant improvement to meet this requirement. Records showed that the home had reviewed all four people's care plans in line with the provider's decision making procedure. Where people lacked the capacity to make significant decisions we saw that systems were in place to ensure that decisions were made in accordance with the MCA. We found that the provider had supported care workers to understand and implement the provider's decision making policy.

We found that the home was offering an enabling and personalised service to people.

We spoke with two people living in the home and one relative. They indicated that they were happy with the way staff cared for them and that they were supported to live well in the home.

People's privacy and dignity were respected. Care workers treated people with respect and were skilled in engaging and communicating with people. People were supported to access a variety of activities in the community and in the home.

We saw up to date plans of care which considered individual physical, emotional and mental health care needs. We saw that risks were managed appropriately and that people's personal routines were detailed to ensure their wishes and preferences were reflected in the support they received.

Staff had training in the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure people's rights were protected.

We saw some people did not have the capacity to make some significant decisions. Records showed that decisions made on behalf of people relating to their finances and health were not consistently made in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People were protected from harm and the risk of harm through staff training and supervision.

The home had made improvements to the quality of their records since our previous inspection. Records were filed correctly and staff could access information easily.

A parent, who arrived at the service during the inspection, told us that she thought the service provided "brilliant care". She also told us that she thought her relative was "lucky to be here". She added that the service has a "nice atmosphere, you are always made to feel welcome, and the staff are very approachable".