• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Laverneo

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Pennywell Road, Nookside, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, SR4 9HX (0191) 528 6908

Provided and run by:
Scope

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

26 July 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 26 July 2017 and was announced. This meant we gave the provider 48 hours notice to ensure there would be someone at the service when we visited. We did this because it is a small service where people are often out during the day.

We previously inspected Laverneo on 3 June 2015, at which time the service was meeting all regulatory standards. At the inspection of June 2015 we rated the service as Good. The service remained rated Good at this inspection

Laverneo is a purpose built bungalow near Sunderland City Centre. The service provides care and support for four adults who have learning disabilities and/or physical disabilities. The service is close to all local amenities.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 who used the service felt safe in the secure and trusting atmosphere at the home. Relatives and external professionals raised no concerns, whilst staff had received refresher training in safeguarding.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty, day and night, in order to keep people safe and meet their needs.

All areas of the building were clean and staff adhered to cleaning schedules to reduce the risks of acquired infections. The premises were well maintained.

Effective pre-employment checks of staff were in place, including Disclosure and Barring Service checks, references and identity checks.

The ordering, storage, administration and disposal of medicines was safe.

Risk assessments were person-centred and staff had clear guidance regarding how to manage the risks people faced.

People had access to GPs, nurses and specialists to get the treatment they needed.

Staff were trained in areas specific to meeting people’s needs, for example epilepsy awareness training, and also in a range of areas the provider considered mandatory, such as safeguarding, health and safety, moving and handling, fire safety and infection control.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisals. Staff told us they were well supported.

People cooked and ate together with staff, were encouraged to have healthy diets and were protected from the risk of malnutrition.

The premises were well adapted to people’s needs, benefitting from a range of new equipment and a new wet room. The registered manager planned to refurbish the kitchen to better meet the needs of people who used the service.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 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 who used the service received an excellent continuity of care from staff who knew their needs extremely well and had built mutually trusting relationships with them. Feedback from relatives and external professionals was exceptional in this regard. People who used the service had developed improved independence and confidence with the help of dedicated and compassionate staff. People’s emotional wellbeing was respected and supported by staff and a registered manager who consistently exceeded good standards of care and ensured people could thrive in a caring environment.

The atmosphere at the home was inclusive, vibrant and welcoming, with people who used the service showing a sense of pride and confidence in their surroundings and friendships. People who used the service, relatives and external stakeholders all told us staff were extremely caring and respectful and that the service felt like a home.

Person-centred care plans were in place and regular house meetings took place. Regular reviews of care plans took place and people were keenly involved in these.

The service had built and maintained good community links, particularly with a local community centre.

A range of opportunities to take part in in-house and external activities were in place, with people having the option to go on trips and outings. These opportunities were less flexible and numerous since the service no longer had access to a minibus.

Staff, people who used the service, relatives and external professionals we spoke with were positive about the registered manager’s capabilities and experience. Staff confirmed they took a hands-on approach to the service and we saw they knew people well. They had successfully maintained a caring culture that put people’s wellbeing and opportunities for independence first.

3 June 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected Laverneo on 3 June 2015. This was an announced inspection. We informed the provider at short notice (the day before) that we would be visiting to inspect. We did this because the location is a small care home for people who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

Laverneo is a purpose built bungalow near Sunderland City Centre. The service provides care and support for four adults who have learning disabilities and / or physical disabilities. The service is close to all local amenities. The registered provider is also registered to provide personal care to people who live in their own homes. At the time of the inspection they were not providing this service.

The home had 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.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were able to tell us about different types of abuse and were aware of action they should take if abuse was suspected. Staff we spoke with were able to describe how they ensured the welfare of vulnerable people was protected through the organisation’s whistle blowing and safeguarding procedures.

Appropriate checks of the building and maintenance systems were undertaken to ensure health and safety.

Risks to people’s safety had been assessed by staff and records of these assessments had been reviewed. Risk assessments had been personalised to each individual and covered areas such as scalding, finance and moving and handling, choking, health and behaviour that challenged. This enabled staff to have the guidance they needed to help people to remain safe.

We saw that staff had received supervision on a regular basis and an annual performance development review.

Staff had been trained and had the skills and knowledge to provide support to the people they cared for. People told us that there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

We found that safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. This included obtaining references from previous employers to show staff employed were safe to work with vulnerable people.

Appropriate systems were in place for the management of medicines so that people received their medicines safely.

There were positive interactions between people and staff. We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect. Staff were attentive, respectful, patient and interacted well with people. Observation of the staff showed that they knew the people very well and could anticipate their needs. People told us that they were happy and felt very well cared for.

We saw that people were provided with a choice of healthy food and drinks which helped to ensure that their nutritional needs were met. At the time of the inspection people had not been weighed on a regular basis and staff had not undertaken nutritional screening of people. However we received information after the inspection confirming that the registered manager had commenced this process and that all people had been weighed.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare professionals and services. People were supported and encouraged to have regular health checks and were accompanied by staff to hospital appointments. We saw that people had hospital passports. The aim of a hospital passport is to assist people with a learning disability to provide hospital staff with important information they need to know about them and their health when they are admitted to hospital.

We saw people’s care plans were very person centred and written in a way to describe their care, and support needs. These were regularly evaluated, reviewed and updated. We saw evidence to demonstrate that people were involved in all aspects of their care plans.

People’s independence was encouraged and their hobbies and leisure interests were individually assessed. We saw that there was a plentiful supply of activities and outings and that people who used the service went on holidays. Staff encouraged and supported people to access activities within the community.

The registered provider had a system in place for responding to people’s concerns and complaints. People were regularly asked for their views. We saw there was a keyworker system in place which helped to make sure people’s care and welfare needs were closely monitored. People said that they would talk to the registered manager or staff if they were unhappy or had any concerns.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw there were a range of audits carried out both by the registered manager and senior staff within the organisation. We saw where issues had been identified; action plans with agreed timescales were followed to address them promptly. We also saw the views of the people using the service were regularly sought and used to make changes.

18 April 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we found the service to be clean and well decorated. People we spoke with were positive about the care they received and told us they enjoyed living at the home. They told us they knew who to complain to if they were unhappy and that they felt safe living at Laverneo.

Staff and people who lived at Laverneo appeared relaxed together and during the day were out for activities such as cookery classes.

21 June 2012

During a routine inspection

People using the service were complimentary of both the staff and the care they received. We asked one person whether they were happy living there and they told us 'yes, very happy'. People told us that they liked their bedrooms and had chosen the colours for all of the rooms in the house themselves.