Archived: 73 High Road

In addition the service also provides care to people who are accommodated in their own home. At the time of this inspection a service was being provided to three people.

This announced inspection took place on 21 September 2016.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Staff, as a result of training and support they had received, possessed a good practical knowledge of recognising the signs of, and protecting people from harm.

Risk assessments had been completed, were detailed and recorded how each person's risk were managed as safely as practicable. This was planned to help staff manage any potential risks such as those for people who could exhibit behaviours which could challenge others.

A sufficient number of skilled, safely recruited and competent staff were in post.

Staff had been trained and deemed competent in the safe administration of people's medicines. Medicines were safely administered. Staff administered people’s medicines safely including medicines prescribed to be given ‘when required’. However, the recording of people's medicines was not accurate. This meant that there was a risk that the management of medicines was not as safe as it should have been.

Staff were provided with training deemed mandatory by the provider as well as subject specific training according to people’s needs. An effective induction, supervision and mentoring process was in place to support staff in a positive way.

Systems were in place to support people in the event of an emergency such as the need to evacuate the premises.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The service’s manager, team leaders and care staff were knowledgeable about if and when a decision needed to be made that were in people’s best interests.

People were supported by, and they had to access to, those health care professionals and services that they required. People were encouraged and supported to have a healthy balanced diet and adequate hydration according to their needs.

People experienced care that was dignified and compassionate. Staff put people’s needs first and foremost. Advocacy arrangements were used to support those people who had need of this support.

People were involved as much as practicable in developing and reviewing their care plans. Information contained in each person’s care plan was detailed and up to date. Staff respected people’s preferences and individual circumstances. People were supported with various opportunities to be as independent as practicable with a wide range of hobbies and interests.

People, their relatives and staff had access to a complaints process which was provided in an accessible format. People and staff were encouraged to provide their views on the quality of the service and the care that it provided.

People were provided with various opportunities to contribute to the running of the service. This included various meetings for people, staff and management. Audits that were undertaken were effective in driving improvements.

The registered manager had fostered and supported an open and honest staff team culture. Lessons were identified and learned from any accidents and incidents and these had been used as opportunities in making changes to the benefit of people. People could and did access the local community at every available opportunity.

Family members who we spoke with had positive comments to make about the standard and quality of their relatives' support and care. One person said it was, 'Brilliant' and another person said that they would recommend the service to anyone.

People who used the service were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing, which in turn supported their main carers, their family members. Their family members said that they had felt reassured and supported, because of the standard and quality of the support and care provided to their relative. This had, therefore, enabled the person to live at home.

There were quality assurance systems in place which included the complaints procedure and on-going reviews of people's support and care programmes. There were other quality assurance systems in place which made sure that members of staff were trained, supervised and competent to provide safe and good quality support and care to people who used the service.

People were provided with adequate amounts of food and drink to ensure they were kept healthy. They were also provided with opportunities to choose what they would like to eat and drink.

To protect people who used the service from unsafe and unco-ordinated care, there were effective communication systems in place. Information about people's support and care needs was shared with relevant health and social care agencies.

Equipment was provided and maintained to ensure that people's support, care and treatment needs were safely and appropriately met.

Members of staff told us that they enjoyed their work, which they found it rewarding. There was a sufficient number of staff employed to meet people's individual support and care needs.

Records were maintained and held securely to protect people from unsafe and inappropriate support and care.