Archived: Church Road

Church Road is a supported living service registered to provide personal care for up to six people adults with significant learning disabilities and complex needs. At the time of our inspection five people were living there. A team of support staff provided 24 hour care and support to people. The service was managed by Care Management Group Ltd, part of Achieve Together, a national organisation providing care and support services.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service

We saw that applications had been made to the Court of Protection for authorisation to deprive some people of their liberty but the provider had not informed the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of the outcome of one of these applications, as required by the regulations. The CQC is still considering what action it needs to take in relation to this matter.

The provider had arrangements in place to monitor the quality of the service, but these had not always been effective as the records in respect of some people using the service were not always kept up to date. The provider took action when they had identified improvements were required.

Staff were caring and treated people with respect. Relatives and professionals said they felt people were safe and their care needs were met.

People had detailed care and risk management plans and these were regularly reviewed. Plans reflected people’s physical, mental, emotional and communication needs and their care and support preferences. Staff were aware of and responsive to people's individual needs and how they wanted to be supported.

Staff supported people to manage behaviours that may challenge others in line with good practice. Staff felt supported by their managers and received an induction, training and regular supervision.

People were supported to be healthy and to access healthcare services. People received their medicines in a safe way and as prescribed. Staff supported people with their food and drinks appropriately.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The provider sought feedback about the service from people’s relatives and other stakeholders. The provider had suitable processes in place for responding to complaints and concerns and used these to develop the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection (and update):

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 10 January 2019). The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when they would improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the service is now rated good.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

The service provides care and support to six people with a learning disability living in a ‘supported living’ setting, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. When we inspected, there were five people using the service.

People using the service lived in six, self-contained, one-bedroom flats in a single property. The service had an office for staff on site and at night there were two waking night staff available to support people, if needed.

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 service had a registered manager who left the service in October 2018. The provider appointed a new manager who was completing their registration with the Care Quality Commission when we inspected. 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.

People did not always receive the medicines they needed safely and as prescribed.

We saw that applications had been made to the Court of Protection for authorisation to deprive people of their liberty but the provider had not informed the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of the outcome of the applications, as required by the regulations. We discussed this with the provider and they stated they would send us notifications in the future whenever the outcomes of any applications to deprive a person of their liberty made to a court of protection, are known.

The provider had systems in place to monitor quality in the service and make improvements but these were not always effective.

The provider had systems to protect people from abuse, staff had appropriate training and could tell us what they would do if they had concerns about a person.

There were enough staff to support people and the provider carried out checks to make sure new staff were suitable to work in the service.

The provider had procedures to prevent and control the spread of infection and support staff had access to Personal Protective Equipment.

The provider had a set of policies and procedures for the management of the service and we saw they reviewed these regularly.

Support staff completed training the provider considered mandatory. The provider also arranged training specific to the needs of the people using the service. Support staff also told us they found the provider’s training helpful.

Staff had the supervision and support they needed to work effectively with people using the service.

We saw people’s support plans included menus using pictures to encourage people to make choices about what they ate each day.

The provider understood their responsibilities under The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). During the inspection we saw that people were not deprived of their liberty unlawfully.

The provider had an end of life care and support policy and we saw they had reviewed this in October 2016. Staff knew about the policy and told us nobody using the service when we inspected was receiving end of life care.

People’s relatives told us staff were kind and caring. During the inspection we saw that support staff worked with people in a positive and caring way. The staff knew people well and could tell us about their care and support needs.

People using the service had complex needs and we could not communicate with some verbally. Support staff could tell us about how each person communicated and the body language, signs and sounds they used to express themselves.

The provider had policies and procedures on person centred care and support planning that referred support staff to guidance from the Department of Health and Social Care and other organisations.

Support plans recorded people’s likes, dislikes and preferences and the ways they preferred staff to support them.

Four of the five people using the service had 1:1 support when they were at home and 2:1 support when they went out to access community activities. Records showed people had the support they needed at home and regularly took part in activities they enjoyed.

The provider had an easy read complaints procedure that used pictures to make the process easier for some people using the service to understand. Managers and staff in the service recorded complaints and compliments they received and we saw they investigated all complaints in line with the provider’s procedures.

Support staff we spoke with could tell us how they supported people using the service at Church Road to live an ordinary life. Support staff also told us they enjoyed working for the provider and said they felt supported by managers and the organisation.

The provider, managers and staff working in the service carried out audits and checks to monitor quality in the service and make improvements.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in relation to safe care and treatment. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.