We carried out a review of the data available to us about SENSE - 30 Norbins Road on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about SENSE - 30 Norbins Road, you can give feedback on this service.
At this inspection we met with the team leader as the registered manager was on annual leave and therefore unavailable to speak with us. At the time of the inspection all residents and staff had tested negative and the home had not had any outbreaks during the pandemic.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Staff had good knowledge of infection prevention control (IPC). All staff had received IPC training, including how to safely put on and take off PPE such as gloves, aprons, and face coverings. A staff member said, “We get refresher training and competency checks as well.”
The home was clean and tidy. Staff were responsible for keeping the premises clean. There was a cleaning schedule that included disinfecting touch points several times a day and steam cleaning soft furnishings. One staff member told us, “We use lots of anti-bacterial wipes and we have changed our cleaning products in response to COVID-19.”
The provider’s visitor’s policy was clear and in line with national guidance. Visitors were required to follow the homes infection control procedures. The provider had a summer house for safe visits as their bedrooms did not allow for social distancing.
The home was split into two floors. The team leader explained how they would implement zoning in the event of another outbreak. There was a contingency plan in place that described key people to be contacted in the event of a pandemic. The home had support from the local GP surgery, the local commissioning team and the organisations senior management team.
The provider was not admitting people to the home because they did not have any vacancies. The team leader told us, no one would be admitted without a negative test first and they would have to isolate for 14 days. They also told us, “Their belongings would go into isolation for 72 hours prior to the person moving in”. The providers admissions policy confirmed this was the correct process for the home.
Regular testing was being carried out, weekly for staff and monthly for people living in the home. This was in line with COVID-19 testing guidance. Consent was recorded in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
• People received care and support that was safe. The provider had a robust recruitment programme which meant all new staff were checked to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. All staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable people.
• Risk assessments were in place to identify any risk to people and staff understood the actions to take to ensure people were safe. There were sufficient staff to support people with their daily living and activities.
• People received effective care and support. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of people’s needs and received training relevant to their role and the needs of people living in the home. People enjoyed a healthy balanced and nutritious diet based on their preferences and health needs.
• People received care from staff who were kind and caring. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity at all times. Staff used innovative ways to enable people to be involved in their care planning and reviews. People were supported to express an opinion about the care provided and contribute to any changes.
• People received responsive care and support which was personalised to their individual needs and wishes. There was clear guidance for staff on how to communicate with people and how to know when a person was not happy or distressed. People were supported to access health care services and to see healthcare professionals when necessary.
• People were supported by a team that was well led. The registered manager demonstrated an open and positive approach to learning and development. Staff said the registered manager was open to suggestions and approachable. One person said the manager was always there to help them and they thought the home was well managed.
• There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, ensure staff kept up to date with good practice and to seek people’s views. Records showed the service responded to concerns and complaints and learnt from the issues raised.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Rating at the last inspection:
At our last inspection we rated the service good. The report was published 10 March 2016.
About the service:
The home provides a service for four people. Three people live in a large Victorian house; the fourth person lives more independently within the self-contained bungalow located at the rear of the property. The home is within walking distance of Glastonbury town centre.
“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.” Registering the Right Support CQC policy
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained Good overall.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
A registered manager was responsible for the home. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
This inspection took place on 4 February 2016 and was unannounced. It was carried out by one inspector.
We spoke with one person; another person was able to communicate with us using sign language. The third person was unwell on the day of the inspection so we did not speak with them on this occasion. We also used our observations and our discussions with people’s relatives and staff to help form our judgements.
Staff understood people’s needs and provided the care and support they needed. The home was a safe place for people. One person said “I get on with the staff very well. I’m happy here.”
People interacted well with staff. Staff were skilled at communicating with people, especially in using sign language. People made choices about their own lives; staff encouraged them to try new things. They were part of their community and were encouraged to be as independent as they could be.
Staffing levels were good and people also received good support from health and social care professionals. Staff had built close, trusting relationships with people over time. One relative said their family member “Gets on very well with staff, especially staff who have worked there a long time. They become like family to her.”
People, and those close to them, were involved in planning and reviewing their care and support. There was a close relationship and good communication with people’s relatives. Relatives felt their views were listened to and acted on.
Staff were well supported and well trained. Staff spoke highly of the care they were able to provide to people. One staff member said “I think the care is excellent here. There’s a good staff team here who really care about the people they are supporting.”
There was a management structure in the home which provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. All staff worked hard to provide the best level of care possible to people. The aims of the service were well defined and adopted by the staff team.
There were effective quality assurance processes in place to monitor care and safety and plan ongoing improvements. There were systems in place to share information and seek people’s views about their care and the running of the home.
We saw that there were a number of different means used to obtain consent. One person told us they always had a choice and were asked to consent to the support provided. Staff told us they 'always give people choice and support them to fulfil their choice' and 'give people time and information in such a way that they can understand'.
One person we spoke with said they had a support plan and knew what it contained; and that their support plan reflected their identified needs. If they weren't happy about it they would 'ask them to write more'. One person's support plan had been brailed so that they could read it.
We saw that activity timetables provided for a range of sensory integration therapies, including sensory sessions, swimming, accessing the community and annual holidays. One person told us 'I'm doing cookery classes and keyboard classes' and that they were able to attend church and go shopping.
We observed positive interactions between people who use the service and staff; people responded well to staff and appeared to enjoy their company. Staff signed to communicate with most people who use the service.
People appeared well cared for and staff were available when they needed them. Staff were confident in communicating with people, particularly in using sign language. One person told us 'I am still very happy here.' People were able to confirm that they liked the staff who supported them. One person told us 'The staff are good.'
Staff spoken with said the home was a safe place for people to live. The home had policies and procedures for recognising and reporting abuse. Staff had appropriate training and understood the various signs of abuse. They knew what action they needed to take to ensure people were safe.
People understood they were able to complain about any aspect of their care or the home more generally. No concerns were raised with us during our inspection. We have not had any concerns raised directly with us about this home; no complaints had been received direct by the service.
We saw that staff worked hard to ensure people were given the opportunity to make choices. Some people were able to say what they would like and staff respected people's views. Other forms of communication were also used to help people make choices, such as sign language, the use of pictures or symbols and written communication.
People who lived in the home appeared very well cared for and staff were available when they needed them. One person told us staff helped them do the things they needed help with. They said 'I'm still getting on with staff, I like all the staff. There are no problems, I'm quite happy living here'.
Each member of staff we spoke with said that recent changes to some people's care had led to them becoming much happier and more settled. One staff member told us one person was 'so much more motivated than before' and another person was 'much more confident than before and seems to trust staff a lot more. The new ways of working have really helped'.
We saw that people looked happy and relaxed when we visited. People are supported by staff that had been trained to recognise and respond to abuse or potential abuse.
People who lived in the home were able to express their views at their monthly meetings and as part of their annual review. Staff told us they had a 'good relationship with people's families' and that they welcomed feedback from them.