This unannounced inspection took place on 19 and 20 October 2015. The previous inspection took place on 13 November 2013 and there were no breaches in the legal requirements.
Reddington House is a five bedded residential home for people with learning disabilities. There is a small garden at the side and back of the property and limited parking on the drive. Accommodation is situated over three floors. At the time of the inspection five people were living at Reddington House.
This service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who is 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 told us they felt safe living at the service. Potential risks to people were identified and staff had detailed guidance in people’s individual care plans to ensure that risks were reduced to a minimum without restricting their activities or their lifestyles.
Staff had training on how to keep people safe. They understood the safeguarding protocols and how to report any concerns, both inside the organisation and to outside agencies such as the local authority safeguarding team. Staff were aware of the whistle blowing policy and were confident that if they raised concerns the provider would take the necessary action to protect the people living at the service.
Accidents and incidents had been recorded, investigated and appropriate action had been taken to reduce the risks of them happening again. Plans were in place in the event of an emergency and people had personal evacuation plans in the event of a fire. Checks on the equipment and the environment were carried out to make sure the premises were safe.
People were being supported by sufficient numbers of staff that had the right skill mix, knowledge and experience to meet their needs. At certain times of the day, staffing levels increased to make sure people were supported with activities of their choice. Recruitment procedures were in place to check that staff were of good character and suitable for their job roles. New staff were given a detailed induction, and completed a probationary period to make sure they were suitable to work in the service. The training programme ensured that staff had the right skills, knowledge and competencies to carry out their roles. Specialist training, such as epilepsy was also provided to make sure staff had a good understanding of people’s individual needs.
The management team supported staff through their one to one meetings and staff meetings. Each member of staff had received an annual appraisal to discuss their ongoing training and development needs.
When people came to live at the service their needs were assessed to ensure that people’s care was delivered in line with their preferences and choices. Care and support plans were designed around people’s individual interests and needs. These were written in a way people could understand and included pictures and photos.
Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with
legal requirements. The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager and staff showed that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People had the support they needed to remain as healthy as possible. People told us how they visited the doctor, dentist and attended hospital appointments. The management of medicines was robust with daily checks to make sure people received their medicines safely.
People said they enjoyed their meals. They had a choice about what food and drinks they wanted and were involved in buying food and preparing their meals. If people needed support with their dietary needs they were seen by a dietician to make sure they continued to receive a healthy diet.
There was a strong emphasis on person centred care and care plans covered people’s preferred daily routines and lifestyle. People talked about their plans and showed they were involved in the planning of their care. The plans were reviewed on a regular basis so that staff had the current guidance to meet people’s changing needs. The registered manager ensured that staff had a full
understanding of people’s support needs and had the skills and knowledge to meet them. Staff knowledge was monitored to make sure they knew people well and how to support them in a way that suited them best. The service was flexible and responded positively to change. They supported people to follow their own pathway and reach new goals.
People were treated with kindness and compassion. They told us that staff made sure their privacy and dignity was maintained. Staff knew people well and had developed good relationships with them. People were encouraged to enjoy their social lives and meet with their family and friends regularly. People were able to express their opinions and were encouraged and supported to have their voices heard within their local and wider community.
Feedback about the service was gathered from people, their relatives and other stakeholders about the service. Their opinions had been summarised and analysed to promote and drive improvements within the service. Staff told us that the service was well led and that the management team were very supportive.
Comprehensive quality monitoring was in place with detailed checks to identify any shortfalls within the service and how the service could continuously improve. There was a culture of openness and inclusion within the service. People were encouraged to be part of the inspection process and had open access to the manager’s office to speak with them whenever they wished.
The complaints procedure was on display in a format that people could understand. People and staff felt confident that if they did make a complaint they would be listened to and appropriate action would be taken to resolve any issues. At the time of the inspection there had been no complaints this year.