Ceely Road

Updated 10 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 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 unannounced inspection took place on the 5 and 6 March 2018. The inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, this included notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes or events that occur at the service which the provider has a legal duty to inform us about. We reviewed the information provided to us in the 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.

During the inspection we spoke with four staff members including the registered manager and the deputy manager. During our visit we were not able to speak with the people who were present in the service due to communication barriers. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. Following the inspection we spoke with three relatives of people living in the service and one health care professional.

We reviewed documents associated with four people’s care and their medicines. We examined records associated with the employment of two staff. We read records related to health and safety, incidents and accidents and audits connected to the running of the service.

Updated 10 April 2018

This unannounced inspection took place on 5 and 6 March 2017. Ceely Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Ceely Road provides care for up to six adults with learning disabilities in one adapted building. At the time of the inspection six people lived in the service.

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.

Ceely Road has a registered manager in place. 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.

Improvements had been made in the area of infection control since our previous inspection in November 2015. An infection control audit along with other audits such as health and safety were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.

At the time of the inspection, the number of staff available to support people was not always sufficient. Following our inspection we were told this had been remedied and staffing levels would be increased to meet the demands of the service.

Trained staff administered medicines to people. Most medicine records were up-to-date and accurate. Where records were not accurate these were amended before the end of our inspection.

Staff recruitment was carried out safely; this was to prevent unsuitable people from working with the people at Ceely Road. Staff were trained and received support to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles. They were encouraged to feedback ideas to assist with the improvement of the service, through supervision, meetings and general discussion.

Staff were trained to identify signs of abuse and how to report concerns. Where people required additional support with maintaining their health, professionals such as psychologists and GPs were consulted.

Where people were not able to make decisions for themselves, their mental capacity was assessed and the best interest process was followed. 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.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the caring nature of staff. We observed how staff supported people with their care in a dignified and sensitive way. People’s communication needs were identified and staff had the skills and knowledge to work in an inclusive way with each person.

People’s relatives told us where appropriate they were kept up to date with changes to people’s needs and their day to day lifestyle choices. Relatives told us there was an honest and open culture in the service.

People were supported to remain as independent as possible; involvement in the community was encouraged. Activities were available to people to protect them from the risk of social isolation.

Care plans and risk assessments were in place to ensure staff knew how to support people appropriately and safely.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and the staff. Staff understood the aim of the service and worked together to accomplish providing good quality and effective care.