Background to this inspection
Updated
24 March 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 checked 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 20 and 21 November 2014 and was unannounced. It was carried out by a single inspector. Before the inspection we asked the provider to complete 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 also reviewed other information about the service such as notifications they are required to submit to the Care Quality Commission.
During our visit the majority people using the service were unable to share their experiences with us due to their complex needs and ability to communicate verbally. So, in order to understand their experiences of using the service, we observed how they received care and support from staff. To do this 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. We spoke with the manager, deputy manager and three care staff. We looked at records which included two people’s care records, training information, and other records relating to the management of the service. After the visit we contacted two relatives of people using service and asked them for their views and experiences of the service.
Updated
24 March 2015
This inspection took place on 20 and 21November 2014 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 20 and 24 June 2013 we found the service was meeting the regulations we looked at. 32 Frays Avenue is a care home which provides accommodation and care for up to three adults with a learning disability.
At the time of our visit there were three people using the service. The accommodation is laid out over two floors. Each person had their own bedroom and can access the communal facilities such as a lounge, dining room, kitchen and garden.
There was a registered manager in place. 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 were protected from the risk of harm because all staff had undertaken training on safeguarding adults and were aware of and felt confident to raise any concerns they had about people that used the service. Risks to people’s welfare and health and safety had been assessed and staff knew how to minimise and manage these to keep people safe from harm or injury.
There were sufficient staff on duty, with the right skills and knowledge to provide care and support to people safely.
Robust medicine management arrangements were in place and people were supported with their medicines by staff that had been trained to do so.
People were supported by staff that were skilled and experienced to meet their needs. Staff were trained, supervised and supported with their professional development.
CQC is required by law to monitor the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS provides a process to make sure that people are only deprived of their liberty in a safe and least restrictive way, when it is in their best interests and there is no other way to look after them. The service met the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Where people did not have the capacity to consent to specific decisions the staff involved relatives and other professionals to ensure that decisions were made in the best interest of the person and their rights were respected.
People’s nutritional needs were assessed and they were supported to eat food and drink that met their needs and preferences. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services and support when required.
Relatives spoke positively about the staff and their kindness and compassion for the people they supported. People were treated with dignity and respect. People’s needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual needs.
People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends and other people that were important to them.
People had opportunities to engage in a range of activities that reflected their interests.
People and their relatives were able to feedback on the quality of the service and were confident to raise any concerns they had with the manager.
The service was well led by an experienced and approachable manager. The culture within the service was positive, open and inclusive. Staff had a good understanding of the organisation’s vision and values and put these into practice.
The service had systems for obtaining the views of people and there were processes in place to respond to and investigate complaints. The service regularly reviewed their performance and where further improvements were identified appropriate actions were taken and followed up.