Sir Evelyn Road

Updated 14 March 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was a comprehensive inspection, which took place on 23 January 2018 and was unannounced.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using similar services.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at previous inspection reports and notifications about important events that had taken place in the service, which the provider is required to tell us by law. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

People’s ability to communicate was limited, so we were unable to talk with everyone. We observed staff interactions with people and observed care and support in communal areas. We spoke with one person with limited communication skills.

We spoke with one support worker, one senior support worker, and the operations manager. We spoke with three visiting relatives. We also requested feedback from a range of healthcare professionals involved in the service. These included professionals from the community mental health team and local authority care managers. We did not receive any feedback about the service.

We looked at the provider’s records. These included two people’s care records, which included support plans, health records, risk assessments and daily care records. We looked at three staff files, a sample of audits, satisfaction surveys, staff rotas, and policies and procedures.

We asked the operations manager to send additional information after the inspection visit, including training records and staff related records that were not available on the day of our inspection. The information we requested was sent to us in a timely manner.

Updated 14 March 2018

The inspection was carried out on 23 January 2018, and was an unannounced inspection.

74 Sir Evelyn Road is a residential home providing care and support for up to six people with Learning disabilities. The service is part of a group of homes managed by Voyage 1 Limited. People who lived in the home had autism and communication difficulties. 74 Sir Evelyn Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. At the time we inspected, five people lived in the home.

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection on 05 January 2016, the service was rated Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well Led domains with an overall Good rating.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There was no registered manager at the service during our inspection. However, there was an acting manager supported by the operations manager at the service. The previous registered manager left her position in January 2018. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The provider continued to provide good leadership. They checked staff were focussed on people experiencing good quality care and support. People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about how the service could be improved. This was used to make changes and improvements that people wanted. Records were consistent and robust.

People continued to be safe at 74 Sir Evelyn Road. Staff knew what their responsibilities were in relation to keeping people safe from the risk of abuse. Staff recognised the signs of abuse and what to look out for. There were systems in place to support staff and people to stay safe.

The provider continued to follow safe recruitment practice.

Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed.

Staff encouraged people to actively participate in activities, pursue their interests and to maintain relationships with people that mattered to them.

People received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access healthcare services.

People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about how the service could be improved. This was used to make changes and improvements that people wanted.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. The acting manager continued to have appropriate arrangements in place to ensure there were always enough staff on shift.

Each person had an up to date, personalised support plan, which set out how their care and support needs should be met by staff. These were reviewed regularly. Staff received regular training and supervision to help them to meet people's needs effectively.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. They also received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access healthcare services.

Staff encouraged people to actively participate in activities, pursue their interests and to maintain relationships with people that mattered to them.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff showed they were caring and they treated people with dignity and respect and ensured people's privacy was maintained, particularly when being supported with their personal care needs.

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.

The provider ensured the complaints procedure was made available in an accessible format if people wished to make a complaint. Regular checks and reviews of the service continued to be made to ensure people experienced good quality safe care and support.