Archived: McRae Lane

Updated 26 March 2019

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 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 22 February 2019 and was unannounced. This meant the provider did not know we were coming. It was undertaken by one inspector.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service including notifications we had received. Notifications are information about important events the provider is required to tell us about by law. We asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to share with us some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information to plan the inspection.

We were unable to speak with people due to their complex needs therefore we observed interactions between them and the staff. During the inspection we spoke with three staff and the registered manager.

We read three people's care records including their needs assessments, support plans, risk assessments, medicines administration records and medicines storage. We reviewed four staff files which included training records along with supervision notes. We read the minutes of recent team meetings and checked the provider's quality assurance records.

Following the inspection, we contacted two health and social care professionals to gather their views about the service people were receiving.

Updated 26 March 2019

This inspection took place on 22 February 2019. At our last inspection of 25, McRae Lane in January 2018, the service was rated as 'Requires Improvement'. Following that inspection the provider sent us an action plan detailing how improvements would be made. At this inspection we found the provider had made significant progress in all areas and we rated the service as 'Good'.

25, McRae Lane is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

25, McRae Lane accommodates up to five people with a learning disability and / or physical disability in one single-story purpose-built building which is wheelchair accessible throughout. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. There were four people living in the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered 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.

At the last inspection in January 2018 we saw safe medicines management processes were not consistently followed with regards to checking stocks of medicines and medicines recording processes. Appropriate action was taken following that inspection, and at this inspection medicines procedures were found to be safe. Fire exits were alarmed and this has helped to minimise the risk to people’s safety. Assessments and clear procedures were in place and understood by staff to respond to fire emergencies.

At the inspection in January 2018 we also found two staff members were not up to date with the provider's mandatory training, which included first aid and medicines management. At this inspection we saw certificated evidence that confirmed all staff had completed their mandatory training in all the areas deemed necessary by the provider including first aid and the safe administration of medicines and medicines management.

People's care and support was planned and delivered safely. Staff understood the provider's safeguarding procedures and their role in keeping people safe. The risks associated with people's care were assessed and managed to reduce the possibility of them experiencing foreseeable harm. There were enough suitable staff to meet people's needs and people's medicines were administered as prescribed. Staff followed appropriate health, hygiene and fire safety practices within the care home.

People had detailed assessments of their needs in place. These had input from health and social care professionals and were regularly reviewed. People's needs were met by trained and supervised staff.

People’s dietary and nutritional needs were met. They ate well and were supported to do so in line with their assessments. The provider made sure people only received care that was in their best interests and they had timely access to healthcare services. The layout of the service and the equipment therein met the needs presented by people's physical disabilities.

People and staff shared warm relationships that had spanned many years. Staff supported people to maintain friendships and contact with relatives. People's privacy was maintained and staff promoted people's independence. Where people chose to, they were supported around their spiritual needs and to participate in the wider activities of church groups.

The service continued to be responsive to people's changing needs. People had person centred care plans and were supported to engage in a wide range of activities that met their individual needs and preferences.

Staff supported people in line with their communication needs. A complaints process was available to people in pictorial and easy to read formats and they had access to advocacy services when required.

Staff felt supported in their roles and enjoyed their work. Management structures and arrangements were clear and the role modelling of good practice was promoted.

The service had improved the robustness of its quality assurance processes so that action was taken where shortfalls were identified. Staff felt supported by the registered manager and encouraged to share their views regarding improvements to the service. People benefitted from the provider’s partnership working with external organisations.