Archived: Walsingham Support - 86 Baker Street

Updated 24 December 2015

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 was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2014 and to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This visit took place on 4 December 2015 and was carried out by one Inspector. The visit was unannounced. Before our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service including statutory notifications relating to the service. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us.

During the inspection we spoke with two people who used the service, two members of care staff, the acting manager and the operations and development manager. We viewed people’s support plans. We looked at staff records. Policies and procedures for safeguarding people and complaints records. We looked at quality monitoring records including various audits and we reviewed staff support documents, team meeting minutes and individual training and supervision records.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us due to complex health needs.

Updated 24 December 2015

We carried out an unannounced inspection on 4 December 2015. Walsingham provides accommodation and personal care, at 86 Baker Street, for up to six people who have a learning disability. At the time of our inspection, there were five people living at the home.

At our last inspection on 22 July 2014 the service was found to be meeting the required standards in the areas we looked at.

The service had an ‘acting manager’ who was managing the service jointly with another acting manager. There was no registered manager at the service at the time of the inspection. However the operations and development manager told us they were actively recruiting to the 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.

The CQC is required to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are put in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves or others.

At the time of the inspection we found that where people lacked capacity to make their own decisions, consent had been obtained in line with the MCA 2005. The manager had submitted DoLS applications to the local authority for four people who were being deprived of their liberty in order to keep them safe, and these were kept under regular review.

People had individual care and support plans and we saw that people’s needs had been assessed and care plans included information relating to their individual needs. Care plans were personalised and demonstrated people’s preferences, and choices. People’s care and support packages were amended as necessary to meet their changing needs.

Some of the people who were present at the home during our inspection were unable to communicate with us. We were however able to speak to one person who told us that they felt safe living at the home. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from abuse and knew how to report concerns both internally and externally. Safe and effective recruitment practices were followed and there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff available to meet people’s individual care and support needs.

The environment and equipment used were checked and maintained to keep people safe. Staff had been trained to assist people take their medicines safely. Potential risks to people’s health and well-being were identified, reviewed and managed effectively.

Staff received an induction when they commenced their employment at the home and had regular training and refresher updates relevant to their roles. They had regular ‘one to one’ supervision with their line manager to discuss and review their personal development and performance and to discuss any work related matters that were important to them.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to health and social care professionals when necessary. They were supported to eat a healthy balanced diet that met their individual needs, and were offered choices.

People were involved in reviews of the care and support provided to them wherever possible.

We saw that staff had developed positive and caring relationships with the people they cared for. Information held about people’s medical and personal histories had been stored securely at the home.

Care was provided in a way that promoted people’s dignity and respected their privacy. People received personalised care and support that met their needs and took account of their choices when possible. Staff knew the people they looked after very well, and knew about their routines, likes and dislikes.

People were encouraged and supported to pursue social interests and participate in meaningful activities relevant to their needs, both at the home and in the wider community.

There was a complaints procedure in place and complaints were recorded and investigated thoroughly with learning outcomes used to make improvements where necessary.

People and staff were complimentary about the management team and how the home was run. There were processes in place to monitor the quality of services provided, reduce potential risks and to achieve continuous improvement.