This inspection took place on 23 October 2014 and was unannounced. We visited again on 27 October 2014 and the provider knew we would re-visit on that date.
Whitby Drive is a small home for five people with a learning disability. It is close to several community facilities.
The home has 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’s needs were assessed well and good plans were in place to detail those needs. We saw staff being effective in delivering those plans.
We saw the home had policies in relation to keeping people safe and that staff knew the signs and symptoms of abuse and understood what action to take if they suspected a person was being abused.
We examined rotas and spoke to staff and relatives about the staffing levels One relative told us “there is always someone to talk to” and the rotas showed that staffing levels were kept at good levels in relation to the needs of people who lived in the home.
We saw that medicines were stored safely in individual’s people’s rooms and that the staff were careful to administer medicines correctly.
Staff within the home had the responsibility of keeping the environment clean and infection free. We saw that there was a rota and instructions that delegated specific tasks to individuals to undertake throughout the week and that records showed that staff did those tasks as instructed. The home looked and smelled clean. Infection control checks by the local authority confirmed that infections would be kept to a minimum by the safeguards in place.
We examined the records relating to staff training and saw that staff had the necessary skills to meet people needs. One member of staff told us “ I have been very well ‘re-skilled’ to work with people living here”
Care records showed that people and their families participated in producing risk assessments and care plans, and that they signed relevant documents to show they had taken part and been listened to.
People were supported to lead healthy lifestyles. The home was careful to ensure that people’s nutritional needs were assessed to keep them safe and they sought guidance from dieticians when they were concerned about someone’s food intake. They were careful to monitor people’s weight to ensure their needs were being met.
We saw care records that showed where people could they gave permission for the treatment they received for example for the home to administer medication for them. Where people had been assessed as not having the capacity to decide such things for themselves we saw that their relatives had participated in the decision and agreed with them to allow staff within the home to meet health care needs.
People were encouraged to make choices about day to day things they did. There were clear records showing their preferences and staff continually asked people what they wanted and responded to the choices they made.
Relatives spoke highly of the care the home gave and felt that they were welcome and contributed to the day to day care being given. We observed staff as they interacted with people and saw that they were friendly and warm. We saw situations that showed staff had formed strong emotional bonds with people and their families. One relative told us, “There is a lot of love in this home and the staff are really concerned about [my relative]. They went on to say, “I feel as if [my relative] and I are part of this big family here and the staff make us feel we are very much part of the home.”
We saw that people were treated with respect and their dignity was protected when staff undertook personal care with a person, or were discussing private matters with them.
The records we examined and the observations we made confirmed that peoples individual needs are important to the home when they met people’s needs Care plans showed a great deal of individualisation, for example, the “best day” records, which showed what a person would think an ideal day for them would be and how staff would help them achieve it. We saw individual treatment in day to day interactions, for example where one person found it difficult to eat with the group, a special table had been set aside for them so they were still a part of the group but didn’t have to eat at the same table.
The home conducted surveys with people and their family’s to find out how they were doing to meet people’s needs. We saw in the care records that people where possible and their relatives were involved in day to day issues. One relative said. “If we had an issue we would raise it and we know it would get dealt with. People here really listen to you.”
Relative’s and staff confirmed that the home was well run by a manager who listened but also gave good guidance about how they should meet people’s needs. Evidence showed she monitored the service well and took prompt action when needed.
People, relative’s and staff were confident about raising any issue or concerns. Staff knew how to respond to that concern’s and took action to do so. One relative told us “[their relative] would soon let us know if [the relative] wasn’t happy,” and that “IT was clear [the relative] was very happy here”