Archived: Strothers Road

Strothers Road is a care home which provides residential care for up to four people who are living with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection three people were using the service.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

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

The registered manager and staff were passionate about supporting people to engage in meaningful activities and actively assisted them to develop their independent living skills. The staff team had been trained to use positive behaviour support (PBS) and had fully implemented these techniques. Staff found this approach greatly reduced individual’s distress and enhanced people’s quality of life.

We found staff were committed to delivering a service which was person-centred. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff took steps to safeguard vulnerable adults and promoted their human rights. People's health needs were thoroughly assessed. Staff actively promoted equality and diversity within the home.

Staff supported people to manage their healthcare needs and promoted their wellbeing. When necessary, external professionals were involved in individuals care. The staff supported people to eat varied appetizing meals. Medicine was administered in a safe manner.

Thorough checks were completed prior to staff being employed to work at the service. The registered manager closely matched staff so each person had an effective core team. Staff had received appropriate training and supervision. The provider had enabled staff to access a varied and extensive range of condition specific training. The registered manager and staff had found the range of training they received assisted them to significantly improve people’s quality of life.

The service was well-run. Systems were in place, which effectively monitored how the service operated and ensured staff delivered appropriate care and treatment.

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

Rating at last inspection

Good (report published 11 July 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

Strothers Road is a care home for adults with a learning disability. It provides accommodation and personal care for four people, nursing care is not provided. Each person had their own self contained flat and staff team.

There was a new registered manager employed at the service since the last inspection. 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 abuse because the staff in the home understood their responsibility to keep people safe and the actions to take if they were concerned a person may be at risk of harm. We saw that people who lived in the home were comfortable with the staff who worked there.

There was a strong emphasis on person centred care. Risks to people were assessed and centred on the needs and rights of each individual. This was a positive feature of the home with risks identified and minimised to enable people to led full and meaningful lives.

The home was well staffed to safely meet people’s diverse needs; allowing them to take part in the community and to follow their interests and hobbies. The service, wherever possible, allocated each person a dedicated team of support workers to provide continuity of care. The provider used robust recruitment procedures to ensure people received support from staff suitable for their roles.

People were supported by staff with the knowledge and skills required to meet their needs. Staff received support and supervision to enable them to undertake their roles effectively. The provider ensured staff received training to address their knowledge and skills gaps.

Staff supported people in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People received care that was responsive to their needs. Staff assessed and reviewed people’s needs to ensure care was planned and delivered in a consistent way.

Support plans to positively manage people’s behaviour, were of a particularly high standard which lead to positive outcomes for people in the home. Healthcare plans and risk assessments were meticulously planned to enable people to access the healthcare they needed to stay fit and well.

People were encouraged to maintain a healthy diet and received the support they required to develop their independence skills in this area. The home worked closely with health and social care professionals for those people whose behaviour may challenge the service. These professionals were very complimentary on the support and progress people had made since living in the home.

People were supported as appropriate to receive their medicines safely from staff assessed as competent to do so. Medicines were safely and securely stored at the service.

Staff communicated very effectively with people and delivered their care in a friendly and compassionate manner. People’s care was provided in a way that promoted their dignity and privacy.

The service was well-led with an open inclusive atmosphere. The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided. People had the opportunity to give their views about the service and a complaints procedure was available and written in a way to help people understand if they did not read.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask:-

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in an environment that was clean and hygienic and met their needs. Both of the relatives that we spoke to confirmed this and thought that the environment was suitable for their relative. One relative said, 'Whenever I call in the place it is clean and comfortable.' Another relative told us that even though their relative's living space was safe, they thought it lacked a homely feel.

At the time of the inspection, there were no Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards procedure in place. Staff had received training, so they knew how to safeguard people at risk of abuse and we saw best interest decisions had been made to protect people from harm. Both relatives thought that people living at the home were safe.

The provider had procedures and information in place to keep people safe from harm, these included emergency contacts and adequate fire evacuation procedures. We asked three members of staff if they could explain what happened in the event of a fire and they were able to appropriately confirm procedures. Although one staff member said, 'I could not leave any person behind to burn.'

There was also quality assurance audits completed to make sure that the service was in good order and safe for people to live in.

We found shortfalls in the security and maintenance of records and have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to this.

Is the service effective?

Both of the relatives that we spoke with told us that they were happy with the care that was delivered to their relative and that their needs were met.

During observations and from speaking with staff, it was clear that staff had a good understanding of both people's care and support needs and that they knew them well; which meant that people received an effective service. Staff had received adequate training to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

Both relatives that we spoke with were complimentary about the service.

Is the service caring?

Our observations showed that staff were understanding and gave reassurance to people living in the home. We heard relaxed conversations between staff and the people living at the home during our visit.

We asked both relatives if they had any concerns about the care provided and they told us they were happy with the care provided at this current time.

Is the service responsive?

We could see from care records, that when a person's needs changed appropriate actions were taken to ensure that needs were met, including for example; attending a hospital appointment, where additional staff were organised to support the person.

We could see that activities were planned around what people wanted to do, for example; going for a walk. This meant that the provider responded by organising staff to accompany people on their activity and also providing suitable transport to achieve this.

Is the service well-led?

We found a newly registered manager at the service who had a very good understanding of the needs of people living at the home and the service they provided. Senior staff also appeared to understand the ethos of the home and were knowledgeable when asked about policies and procedures.

A quality assurance processes was in place to ensure that the quality of the service was maintained and further improved.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. However, where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider had not always acted in accordance with legal requirements.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

People were protected from the risk and spread of infection. The home was clean and hygienic throughout, and there were no unpleasant odours.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. This meant staff employed to work at the home had been judged safe to work with vulnerable people who used the service.

There was an effective complaints system available. The relative of a person who used the service told us, 'If I had any problems I would go through the staff. But everything's fine.'

People who used the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment through the use of an easy read service user guide. Peoples' privacy and dignity had been promoted helping to increase their sense of self-esteem. Peoples' independence had been promoted enabling them to live a full and varied lifestyle. Peoples' needs had been assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Staff were able, from time to time, to obtain further relevant qualifications and received appropriate professional development. The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others, such as staff and visitors.