Archived: Disabilities Trust - 52 Porthcawl Green

At the last inspection on 12 November 2015 the service was rated Good.

At this inspection on 08 November 2017 we found the service remained Good.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People continued to receive safe care. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report them. People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. The premises were appropriately maintained to support people to stay safe. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

Systems were in place to ensure the premises was kept clean and hygienic so that people were protected by the prevention and control of infection. There were arrangements in place for the service to make sure that action was taken and lessons learned when things went wrong, to improve safety across the service

People’s needs and choices were assessed and their care provided in line with up to date guidance and best practice. The care that people received continued to be effective and meet their needs. Staff received an induction process when they first commenced work at the service and in addition also received on-going training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people.

People received enough to eat and drink and staff gave support when required. People were supported by staff to use and access a wide variety of other services and social care professionals. The staff had a good knowledge of other services available to people and we saw these had been involved with supporting people using the service. People were supported to access health appointments when required, including opticians and doctors, to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.

People’s diverse needs were met by the adaptation, design and decoration of premises and they were involved in decisions about the environment. Staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and they gained people's consent before providing personal care.

People had developed positive relationships with the staff, who were caring and treated people with respect, kindness and courtesy. The culture was open and honest and focused on each person as an individual. People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided and staff had a good understanding of people's needs and preferences.

People were listened to, their views were acknowledged and acted upon and care and support was delivered in the way that people chose and preferred. Care plans were person centred and reflected how people’s needs were to be met. Records showed that people and their relatives were involved in the assessment process and the on-going reviews of their care. People were supported to take part in activities which they wanted to do, within the service and the local community. There was a complaints procedure in place to enable people to raise complaints about the service.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The registered manager and senior staff were positive role models which encouraged communication and learning. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service and it was used to drive continuous improvement. A range of quality checks were in place and used regularly to ensure people received a good quality service driven by improvement.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

Is the service caring?

People who used the service told us they were well supported and looked after. Staff regularly asked people if they were satisfied with the care they received and if they wanted any changes. Staff supported people in leading a varied lifestyle that promoted their independence. One person said: "I like it here". People were supported by kind and attentive staff.

Is the service responsive?

We were told about the extra support that had been provided to help a person to settle in who had just moved into the home. We saw examples of the activities that people had. Staff told us about the changes they intended to make to enhance a person's daily living skills.

Is the service safe?

People indicated through their body language that they felt safe in their environment and with staff. Risk management was an integral part of the service to protect people from harm or injuries. The premises were appropriate and equipment was kept safe to avoid unnecessary risk. Staff recruitment practices were safe and thorough that protected people from harm.

Is the service effective?

People's support and care needs were assessed and care plans were in place. These were regularly reviewed to ensure that staff had up to date guidance. We found that people's health needs were monitored and the assistance of external professionals had been requested. People's mobility needs were taken into account in assisting them to move freely about the home.

Is the service well led?

There was a robust quality assurance system place. Records of audits carried out included actions that were needed that would benefit the people who used the service. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home their required standards of work.

We found that there was a system in place for the safe management of medicines.

We found that people's health needs had been assessed and regularly reviewed.

We found that staff had received regular supervision and appraisal and had received additional training relevant to the requirements of their job.

We found the service to be safe, effective and compassionate.

People's needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Assessments of need, care plans were up to date and comprehensive. Care and support was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. People using the service told us that they got on well with staff and could talk to them. Staff had received a wide range of training during the last year.

There was an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. A programme of regular audits was undertaken with action taken to remedy any areas for improvement.