The inspection visit took place on 18 May 2017 and was unannounced. We returned to speak with the provider on 01 June 2017, as they were out of the country at the time of our inspection.The last comprehensive inspection of this service was carried out 06 February 2015, at which time we found the provider was meeting legal requirements.
During this inspection, we found the provider had continued to meet legal requirements and, as such showed consistent good practice.
Mr David Calwell – 6 Lord Street is a small home registered to provide care and accommodation for up to three persons who live with learning disabilities. The home is situated in a residential area of St Annes close to the sea front and within walking distance of a number of facilities and amenities. At the time of our inspection, three people were living at the home.
The provider understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they knew how to work within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions. However, they had not recorded assessments of people’s capacity to make decisions. Additionally, decisions, which had been taken in people’s best interests, had not been recorded. We have made a recommendation about this.
We found the provider had systems to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.
We looked at the recruitment of two staff members. We found appropriate checks had been undertaken before they had commenced their employment confirming they were safe to work with vulnerable people.
Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed an induction and training programme was in place. Staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.
Individual risk assessments had been completed for people who lived at the home. This helped to ensure risks had been identified and measures put in place to reduce risks to people’s safety and wellbeing.
The environment was maintained, clean and hygienic when we visited. We saw staff followed infection control guidelines.
We found sufficient staffing levels were in place to provide support people required. We saw staff members could undertake tasks supporting people without feeling rushed.
We found medication procedures at the home were safe. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. Medicines were stored appropriately.
People’s nutritional needs were met by staff who knew their individual needs, likes and dislikes. People told us they were satisfied with the meals staff prepared for them.
The service had a complaints procedure which was made available to people on their admission to the home. People we spoke with told us they were happy and had no complaints.
Care plans were organised and had identified the care and support people required. We found they were informative about care people had received. They had been kept under review and updated when necessary to reflect people’s changing needs.
We found people had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs had been met.
We observed staff supporting people with their care during the inspection visit. We saw they were kind, caring, patient and attentive.
The provider used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys and care reviews. The provider also spent time with each person who used the service every week. We found people were satisfied with the service they received.