Victoria House

Victoria House is a residential care home for up to 25 people with physical disabilities. The home is owned by the Disabilities Trust and is purpose built over two levels. Facilities include two adapted kitchens, a large and a small communal lounge, two passenger lifts, activities room, training/computer room, sensory room and gardens.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Staff had received safeguarding training and were aware of how to recognise and respond to risk. Individualised risk assessments were in place and people were supported with positive risk-taking to maintain their independence, choice and control. There were sufficient numbers of staff who were deployed appropriately in the service to meet people’s needs and support people to live safely and as they had chosen to.

Staff were equipped with the necessary skills to provide effective care and support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring; they promoted people’s independence and treated them with dignity and respect.

People were supported to live their lives to their fullest, as active members of the community which enhanced their lives. They were supported to follow their interests and engage in things important to them. People’s care plans were very person-centred and were reviewed regularly with them to ensure they were involved, and goals were set, which they were supported to achieve.

The service was well-led; systems were in place to assess and improve the quality of the service and complaints were responded to thoroughly. There was an open culture and learning was encouraged to drive improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service and the staff supporting them, and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

' Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people.

People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service, completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were taken on board and dealt with.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

' Is the service responsive?

Staff knew the people they cared for and understood their preferences and personal histories.

The manager told us there had been no complaints since our last inspection. People knew how to complain. One person told us, 'I don't have any complaints; I'm really happy thank you.'

We saw that people's care needs were kept under review and care plans were updated when required.

' Is the service safe?

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.

The people who used the service told us they were happy and that they felt safe.

People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

' Is the service effective?

Advocacy information was displayed within the home and sent to the families of people who used the service so that people could get help if they needed it. This meant that people who used the service could access additional support when required.

The people who used the service had their health and care needs assessed. We saw the care plans reflected their current needs.

The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people with physical impairments.

' Is the service well led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system and records we looked at showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving.

People who used the service and their relatives told us;

'I go to all the meetings I can, they are great; they give us a chance to have our say' and 'We talk about everything to do with the home, summer fairs, activities and it's why we have the eye readers (assistive computer technology) and computers.'

'It's lovely, it's kept clean and fresh; it wasn't long ago that all the rooms were redecorated.'

A relative told us, 'The staff have gloves and aprons, you see them wearing them' and 'It's always so clean, not like what you hear about other places, it smells nice, looks clean and she (the person who used the service) always looks well presented, clean clothes and what have you.'

Care plans contained risks assessments in relation to manual handling, emotional support, pressure care and accessing the community.

People who used the service were protected against the risk of unlawful or excessive control because the provider had made suitable arrangements to educate staff on how to deal with difficult situations. The registered manager explained, 'We have put together support plans to guide staff when someone is acting inappropriately. We never use restraint.'

Staff received appropriate training and professional development. We spoke with four members of staff who told us they had been on a range of training courses and that their personal development was supported. We saw evidence that team meetings were held regularly and were used as a forum to discuss any changes to people's needs or best practice.

People had their comments and complaints listened to and acted on. We saw that recent complaints had been responded to appropriately, investigated and resolved were possible to the satisfaction of the complainant. This provided assurance that complaints were taken seriously by the organisation.