The inspection took place on 13 August 2016 and was announced. The provider (Voyage 1 Limited) was given 24 hours’ notice because the location was a small residential service for people with learning disabilities who might have needed preparation for our visit. The service supported people with autistic spectrum disorders, and people with visual and auditory impairment and additional health needs such as epilepsy.Beechwood is a large bungalow. There were shared bathrooms, a communal kitchen and a communal lounge. There was an outside garden area. Access to the bungalow was step free and accessible for wheelchairs.
The service had 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’s quality of life had improved under the leadership of the registered manager. Staff and relatives all described the management in exceptional terms. Staff talked positively about their jobs and their shared commitment to people achieving their best. The leadership at the home had led to great improvements in the past 14 months, care was based on best practice and the staff team highly motivated to achieve excellent care. The registered manager was proactive and determined, they ensured effective and close monitoring of all aspects of the service to ensure ongoing improvement across all areas.
On the day of the inspection staff within the service were relaxed, there was a calm and friendly atmosphere. Everybody had a clear role within the service. Information we requested was supplied promptly, records were organised, clear, easy to follow and comprehensive.
People had limited verbal communication but we observed they felt comfortable with staff, were warm, tactile and engaged in their interactions with staff. Care records were personalised and gave people control over all aspects of their lives. Staff responded quickly to people’s change in needs. People or where appropriate those who mattered to them, were involved in regularly reviewing their needs and how they would like to be supported. People’s preferences were identified and respected.
Staff put people at the heart of their work; they exhibited a kind and compassionate attitude towards people. Strong relationships had been developed and practice was person focused and not task led. Staff had appreciation of how to respect people’s individual needs around their privacy and dignity.
People’s risks were managed well and monitored. People were promoted to live full and active lives. Staff were highly motivated and creative in finding ways to overcome obstacles that restricted people’s independence.
People had their medicines managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed, received them on time and understood what they were for. People were supported to maintain good health through regular access to health and social care professionals, such as GPs, social workers, occupational therapists and physiotherapists.
People we observed were safe. The environment was uncluttered and clear for people to move freely around the home, equipment was well maintained and outings to external venues risk assessed. Staff discreetly monitored people’s behaviour and interactions to ensure the safety of all the people and staff at the service. All staff had undertaken training on safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse, they displayed good knowledge on how to report any concerns and described what action they would take to protect people against harm. Staff told us they felt confident any incidents or allegations would be fully investigated.
People were supported by staff that confidently made use of their knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (2005), to make sure people were involved in decisions about their care and their human and legal rights were respected. Families were involved in decision making and advocacy services were used when required. The service followed the laws and processes in place which protect people’s human rights and liberty.
People were supported by staff teams that had received a comprehensive induction programme, tailored training and ongoing support that reflected individual’s needs.
People were protected by the service’s safe recruitment practices. Staff underwent the necessary checks which determined they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults, before they started their employment.
The service had a policy and procedure in place for dealing with any concerns or complaints.
No written complaints had been made to the service in the past twelve months.
There were robust quality assurance systems in place. Feedback from relatives and professionals was noted, listened to and action taken. Incidents were appropriately recorded and analysed from trends. Learning from incidents and concerns raised was used to help drive improvements and ensure positive progress was made in the delivery of care and support provided by the service.