Archived: United Response - 9 Lavender Road

Updated 11 February 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 15 and 28 November 2016 and the first day was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, including notifications. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales. Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We spoke with the local authority commissioning team for their views on the service.

During the inspection, we used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who lived in the home, including observations, speaking with people, interviewing staff and reviewing records. We spoke with four people who used the service, although due to their needs we were unable to fully understand their views and experiences of the service. We spoke with two visiting relatives. We spoke with the registered manager, five support workers. We also spoke with an area manager who assisted the registered manager during the inspection.

We looked at a sample of records including three people’s care plans and other associated documentation, medicine records, five staff files, which included staff training and supervision records, one staff member’s recruitment records, complaint, accident and incident records, policies and procedures, risk assessments and audit documents.

Updated 11 February 2017

We carried out an inspection of United Response - 9 Lavender Road on 15 and 28 November 2016. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. We last inspected United Response - 9 Lavender Road in August 2016 and found the service was not meeting some of the relevant regulations.

United Response - 9 Lavender Road provides accommodation and personal care for up to 6 people with a learning disability. There were 6 people accommodated there on the day of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

Visitors told us they felt their relatives were safe and were well cared for. Staff took steps to safeguard vulnerable adults and promoted their human rights. Incidents were dealt with appropriately, which helped to keep people safe.

The accommodation provided was suitably adapted for the people who lived there. The building was safe and well maintained. Risks associated with the building and working practices were assessed and steps taken to reduce the likelihood of harm occurring. Minor maintenance issues were dealt with at the time of the inspection. The home was clean.

We observed staff acted in a courteous, professional and safe manner when supporting people. Staffing levels were sufficient to safely meet people’s needs. The provider had a robust system to ensure new staff were subject to thorough recruitment checks.

Medicines, including topical medicines (creams applied to the skin) were safely managed. Records to account for emergency medicines supplied to a day centre required strengthening to ensure they could be reliably accounted for.

As United Response - 9 Lavender Road is registered as a care home, CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We found appropriate policies and procedures were in place and the registered manager was familiar with the processes involved in the application for a DoLS. Arrangements were in place to assess people’s mental capacity and to identify if decisions needed to be taken on behalf of a person in their best interests. People’s mental capacity was considered through relevant areas of care, such as with decisions about finances, the use of equipment and medicines. Where necessary, DoLS had been applied for. Staff routinely discussed proposed interventions before providing care to gauge if the person consented.

Staff had completed safety and care related training relevant to their role and the needs of people using the service. Further training was planned to ensure their skills and knowledge were up to date. Staff were well supported by their managers and other senior staff. Staff performance was assessed annually and objectives set for the year ahead.

People’s nutritional and hydration (eating and drinking) status was assessed and plans of care put in place where support was needed. People’s health needs were identified and external professionals involved if necessary. This ensured people’s general medical needs were met promptly. People were provided with assistance to access healthcare services.

Staff displayed an attentive, caring and supportive attitude. We observed staff interacted positively with people. We saw that staff treated people with respect and explained clearly to us how people’s privacy, dignity and confidentiality were maintained. Staff were able to communicate effectively with people using a range of strategies and tools, such as cue cards.

Activities were offered within the home on a group and one to one basis. Staff worked collaboratively with local day care services. Staff understood the needs of people and we saw care plans and associated documentation were clear and person centred.

People’s relatives and staff spoke well of the registered manager and they felt the service had good leadership. We found there were effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service, which included feedback from people receiving care and oversight from external managers. The registered manager and staff team had worked hard to address areas for improvement identified at previous inspections.