Archived: 86 London Road

Updated 26 February 2021

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 is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 3 February 2021 and was announced.

Updated 26 February 2021

86 London Road provides accommodation and care for five people who have a learning disability. The five people living at the service on the day of our inspection had lived in the service for some years. The premises are a two storey residential style house in keeping with the other houses in the area. There is parking to the front and an accessible garden to the rear for people’s use.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good and was meeting the fundamental standards.

At the time of this inspection a registered manager was not in post. A manager had registered with the commission since the last inspection and had since left the service. The current manager was in the process of making an application for registration with the commission as required. 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.

The service was safe. Staff were knowledgeable about identifying abuse and how to report it to safeguard people. Recruitment procedures were satisfactory. Detailed risk assessments were in place for people using the service to support their safety. There were also processes in place to manage any risks in relation to the running of the service. Staff deployment was suitable for people’s needs and people’s medicines were safely managed.

The service was effective. People were supported by experienced staff to have choice and control of their lives. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible; the practices and systems in the service supported this approach. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition and they had access to healthcare services.

The service was caring. We saw friendly, caring and supportive interactions between staff and people and staff knew the needs and preferences of the people using the service. People’s dignity, privacy and independence was respected. Relationships were supported and relatives felt welcomed.

The service was responsive. People’s care needs had been assessed with them and they received the flexible support they needed from the service. Care plans were person centred and reflected what was important to the person. The service had a complaints policy in place and people felt able to complain if they needed to.

The service was well-led. The service had a positive open culture. The manager and the provider had systems in place to check on the quality and safety of the service provided and to put action plans in place where needed.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.