Background to this inspection
Updated
29 March 2017
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.
The inspection was undertaken by one inspector on 27 February 2017 and was unannounced.
Before the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included previous inspection reports and notifications. A notification is information about important events, which the service is required to send us by law.
During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager and two members of staff. We were not able to speak to people because they had complex needs. We therefore observed and heard how staff interacted with people to understand their experiences of using the service. After the inspection we spoke on the telephone with one relative and two social care professionals who supported people within the service.
We inspected the premises and looked at three people’s records which related to their care needs, three staff files and other records associated with the management of the service
Updated
29 March 2017
This inspection took place on 27 February 2017 and was unannounced. The last comprehensive inspection was completed on 27 January 2016. It was rated as “good” overall but with a breach of Regulation 17. The provider subsequently sent us an action plan that identified how they planned to address the issues that led to the breach. At this inspection we found that action had been taken to improve the service and to meet the breach of legal requirements.
We saw the provider had met the recommendations made by the London Fire Brigade at their inspection of the service in August 2015. Improvements were made to the garden and the provider carried out a range of feedback surveys, checks and audits to monitor the quality of the service that were effective in identifying areas for improvement.
We have improved the rating for the key question ‘Is the service well-led?’ from ‘requires improvement’ to ‘good’.
185 Herbert Road provides care and accommodation for up to three men with learning disabilities and autism. On the day of the inspection three people lived at the home.
At the time of the inspection, there was a registered manager. 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.
Relatives told us they felt people were well cared for and safe living at the service. This view was confirmed by the health and social care professionals we spoke with. Staff knew how to help protect people if they suspected they were at risk of abuse or harm. Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing had been assessed. Staff knew how to minimise risks and manage identified hazards in order to help keep people safe from harm or injury.
There were sufficient numbers levels of staff to meet people’s needs. This was endorsed by the relatives of people we spoke with and by staff.
People received their medicines appropriately and staff knew how to manage medicines safely.
Staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS provides a process to make sure people are only deprived of their liberty in a safe and correct way. There were policies in place in relation to this and appropriate applications were made by the provider to the local authorities for those people who needed them. Staff supported people to make choices and decisions about their care wherever they had the capacity to do so.
People had varied and nutritious diets and choice of meals. They were supported to stay healthy by staff who were aware of people’s healthcare needs and through regular monitoring by healthcare professionals.
Relatives and professionals told us staff were consistently kind and caring and established positive relationships with people and their families. Staff valued people, treated them with respect and promoted their rights, choice and independence.
Comprehensive care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. They had been produced jointly with relatives and where possible people using the service. Relatives told us they agreed the care plans and were fully involved in making decisions about their family member’s support.
People participated in a wide range of activities within the home and in the community and received the support they needed to help them to do this.
There was a complaints procedure in place and relatives felt confident to raise any concerns either with the staff or the registered manager if they needed to. The complaints procedure was available in different formats so that it was accessible to everyone.
We found there was an open and transparent culture in the home where staff were encouraged to share in the development of the home for the people living in it.
We saw staff were motivated in their work and were keen to improve their learning. They told us and we saw they had access to good and relevant training. Staff received regular and effective supervision. The registered manager had completed qualifications in management in care and supported a culture where staff training, support and development was emphasised.
We found the provider was meeting the breach of regulation 17 because they had implemented a new system that sought feedback about the quality of the service from different people involved with the service. There were systems in place to use the feedback received to improve the service where necessary.