Rydal Mount

Rydal Mount is a residential care home providing personal care to 4 people with a learning disability. Rydal Mount is a small bungalow set in its own ground in a residential area.

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Right Support

People were supported by staff to pursue their interests. Staff focused on people’s strengths and promoted what they could do, so people had a fulfilling and meaningful everyday life. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff assisted them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service upheld this practice.

Right Care

People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people’s privacy and dignity. They understood and responded to their individual needs. Staff understood how to protect people from poor care. The service worked well with other agencies to do so. The service gave people opportunities to try new activities that enhanced and enriched their lives. Where appropriate, staff encouraged and enabled people to take positive risks.

Right Culture

People received good quality care and support and treatment because trained staff could meet their needs. Staff knew and understood people well and were responsive to any changes in needs. Staff turnover was low, which supported people to receive consistent care from staff who knew them well. The provider continuously monitored the service but in-house checks needed to be more robust to identify areas for improvement.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 19 October 2017).

Why we inspected

We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding.

This report only covers our findings in relation to the key questions Safe and Well-led. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Rydal Mount on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Recommendations

We have made a recommendation about supporting staff to have training and guidance to carry out in-house audits in a constructive and critical way.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

This inspection visit took place on 23 August 2017 and was announced.

Rydal Mount is a small bungalow set in its own ground in a residential area close to the centre of Wigton. It provides support for up to four people with learning disabilities. Each person has their own bedroom and shares communal facilities.

At the time of our inspection two people lived at Rydal Mount. They had lived together for several years.

At the last comprehensive inspection on 10th July 2015 the service was rated overall as good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

There was a registered manager in place but they were not available on the day we inspected. 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 who used this service were not easily able to converse with us but we were able to observe how they were supported and have limited conversations with one person. They indicated they were happy and safe at Rydal Mount.

There were procedures in place to protect people from abuse and unsafe care. We saw risk assessments were in place which provided guidance for staff. This minimised risks to people.

There were enough staff to support people with personal care and social and leisure activities. They were supported to develop their skills and knowledge to assist them to carry out their role and to provide safe care and support in the way people wanted.

Medicines were managed safely. Medicines were stored securely, administered as prescribed and disposed of appropriately.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People indicated they were happy with the variety and choice of meals available to them.

Care plans were personalised and informative. They described how people wished to be supported and their needs and wishes. People who received support or where appropriate their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care. Their consent and agreement were sought before providing care.

People who lived at Rydal Mount or their relatives knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint. The complaints procedure was available and people indicated they could let staff know if they were not happy about something.

Senior staff monitored the support staff provided to people. Audits of care and surveys of the views of people and their families were carried out regularly.

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

We found that staff were aware of what constituted abuse and how to report their concerns. The service regularly reported any concerns or incidents to the correct authorities. People's needs were thoroughly assessed and any risks identified were well managed.

Is the service effective?

People's legal right to be supported in making their own decisions had been protected because the staff had worked hard to ensure that guidance relating to the Mental Capacity Act had been followed. Staff worked in conjunction with other health and social care providers to ensure people's needs were met quickly and appropriately.

Is the service caring?

We observed that people were cared for by warm and friendly staff who were knowledgeable about the people they cared for. People who we spoke with confirmed that they liked living at Rydal Mount and were satisfied with the service they received. Support plans were well written, detailed and based on a thorough assessment of people's needs.

Is the service responsive?

Records confirmed that people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. People had access to activities that were important to them and had been supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.

Is the service well-led?

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and quality assurance processes were in place. People who used the service and staff were listened to and their ideas and suggestions were taken into account. The manager provided clear leadership and was aware of areas that required improvement.

We found that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received and there was an effective complaints system. However we noted that appraisals and supervision were not occurring regularly and were not up to date.