Common Road

Updated 26 April 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 was planned to check 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.

Our inspection took place on 13 March 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the registered manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

Our inspection was completed by one adult social care inspector and a specialist advisor. Our specialist advisor was a registered mental health nurse.

We reviewed information we already held about the service. This included notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We also requested information from relatives, local authorities, clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and other health or social care professionals. We checked records held by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the local fire inspectorate.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with the person who used the service and received feedback from one relative.

We spoke with the provider’s registered manager and team leader. We also spoke with four care workers about the person’s accommodation and personal care.

We looked at the person’s care records, a staff personnel file, the medicines administration record and other records about the management of the service. After the inspection, we asked the registered manager to send us further documentation and we received and reviewed this information. This evidence was included as part of our inspection.

Updated 26 April 2018

Our inspection took place on 13 March 2018 and was announced.

Common Road is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. We regulate both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service accommodated one person in a residential house. There was a bedroom, bathroom, combined lounge and dining room with a yard at the rear of the house. There was also a staff office.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the “Registering the Right Support” and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen

The provider is required to have a registered manager as part of their conditions of registration. 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. At the time of our inspection, there was a registered manager in post.

At our last inspection on 13 October 2015 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 ongoing 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.

Why the service is rated good:

We found the person was protected against abuse or neglect. The person had personalised risk assessments tailored to their personal requirements. We saw sufficient staff were deployed to provide support to the person and ensure their safety. Medicines were safely managed. The premises were clean and tidy.

The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated codes of practice. The person was assisted 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.

Staff received appropriate induction, training, supervision and support. This ensured their knowledge, skills and experience were suitable to care for the person. The person’s care preferences, likes and dislikes were assessed, recorded and respected. Access to other community healthcare professionals ensured the person could maintain a healthy lifestyle .

Staff had developed a friendly relationship with the person who used the service and their relatives. There was complimentary feedback from the person and their relative about the care, staff and service. The person’s privacy was respected and they received dignified support from staff.

The service provided person-centred care. The person’s care plans were holistic and contained information on how staff could support the person in the best way. We saw there was an appropriate complaints system in place. The person had a say in how their care was planned and delivered. Staff actively listened to and abided by the person’s choices.

The service was well-led. There was a positive workplace culture and staff felt that management listened to what they had to say. The management used robust methods to measure the safety and quality of care. The service had developed strong relationships with the social and healthcare community in the area. The service followed the principles of the Accessible Information Standard.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.