Background to this inspection
Updated
14 June 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 was planned to check whether the provider is 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 05 and 06 April 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector. Prior to our inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included information from notifications received from the registered provider, and feedback from the local authority safeguarding and commissioners. 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 used this information to help plan the inspection.
Some people who used the service used non-verbal communication and as we were not familiar with their way of communicating we used a number of different methods to help us understand people’s experiences. We spent time observing the support people received. We spoke with three support workers, a senior support worker, the area manager and the registered manager. We looked in the bedrooms of four people who used the service. After the inspection we spoke with one relative.
During our inspection we spent time looking at three people’s care and support records. We also looked at two records relating to staff recruitment, training records, maintenance records, and a selection of the service’s audits.
Updated
14 June 2017
This inspection of 5 Cedar Avenue took place on 05 and 06 April 2017. The visit on 05 April was unannounced and the visit on 06 April was announced. People working at the home refer to it as ‘Cedar Avenue.’
We previously inspected the service on 20 and 22 January 2016 and at that time we found the registered provider was not meeting the regulations relating to consent, staffing and keeping accurate records. We asked the registered provider to make improvements. The registered provider sent us an action plan telling us what they were going to do to make sure they were meeting the regulations. On this visit we found improvements had been made.
The service is required to have 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. The service had a registered manager in place.
Cedar Avenue provides personal care and accommodation for up to four people who have both learning and physical disabilities. The registered provider is United Response. The home is an adapted bungalow set within its own grounds and is located in a residential setting close to Huddersfield town centre.
There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s individual needs and keep them safe.
Staff had a good understanding about safeguarding adults from abuse and knew who to contact if they suspected any abuse. Detailed risk assessments were in place to support staff to deliver safe care.
Medicines were managed in a safe way for people.
The provider had effective recruitment and selection procedures in place. Medicines were managed in a safe way for people.
People had maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service promoted this practice. People’s capacity was always considered when decisions needed to be made. This helped ensure people’s rights were protected in line with legislation and guidance.
Staff had received an in depth induction, supervision, appraisal and specialist training to enable them to provide support to people who lived at Cedar Avenue. This ensured they had the appropriate knowledge and skills to do this effectively.
People enjoyed the food and were supported to eat an individualised balanced diet. A range of healthcare professionals were involved in people’s care.
The home had a warm homely atmosphere and was tailored to meet each person’s individual needs and preferences.
We observed staff interacting with people in a caring, friendly and respectful manner. Staff were able to clearly describe the steps they would take to ensure the privacy and dignity of the people they cared for and supported. People were supported to be as independent as possible throughout their daily lives.
Individual needs were assessed and met through the development of detailed personalised care plans and risk assessments. People and their representatives were involved in care planning and reviews.
People were able to make choices about their care. People’s care plans detailed the care and support they required and included detailed information about their likes and dislikes.
People engaged in social and leisure activities which were person centred. Care plans included measures to protect them from social isolation.
Systems were in place to ensure complaints were encouraged, explored and responded to in good time.
Accurate records were maintained in relation to care that was being delivered.
The culture of the organisation was open and transparent. The manager was visible in the service and knew the needs of the people in the home.
The registered provider had an overview of the service. They audited and monitored the service to ensure the needs of the people were met and that the service provided was to a high standard.