Gaywood Street

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

People’s experience of using the service and what we found

Right Support: The service supported people to have maximum possible choice, control and independence over their lives. People were supported in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. Staff supported people to pursue their interests in the community.

Right Care: Care workers understood peoples cultural needs and support preferences. They understood people’s cultural needs and appropriate care was provided. People received kind and compassionate care. Care workers understood how to respond to people’s individual needs.

Right Culture: People were supported by care workers who understood best practice in relation to the sensitivities and strengths of people with learning disabilities. People received good quality care, support and treatment from care workers and specialists trained to meet their needs.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

We found recommendations following a recent fire risk assessment in April 2023 had not been implemented. We found no evidence this put people at a risk of harm. This was discussed with the registered manager who took action to rectify the concerns.

The provider had measures in place to so recruitment was safe. However, we found the provider did not keep copies of care workers Disclosure and Barring Checks on site.

We found 2 files with incomplete right to work in the United Kingdom checks. This was discussed at the inspection and the information was gathered and files were updated.

The décor of the home required minor repair and updating but was clean and tidy throughout. The home was adapted to meet people’s needs. People were treated with, respect and compassion. Relatives told us they were happy with the care their family members received.

We saw care workers and staff interact in an attentive and caring manner with people. People’s privacy and dignity were respected. People were cared for by care workers who had received appropriate training to support their needs.

People had care plans in place to ensure care workers knew how to provide personalised support. The registered manager was responsive to any concerns relatives may have and communicated well with them. People were supported to maintain relationships to prevent social isolation.

The registered manager promoted a positive culture that was open, and person centred. The service was engaging, and the views of people using the service and their relatives were sought.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 20 July 2017).

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted by a review of information we held about the service.

Enforcement and Recommendations

We have made a recommendation in relation to, Managers and staff being clear about their roles, and understanding quality performance, risks, and regulatory requirements.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

At our last inspection in May 2015 the service was rated as 'Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The service had a registered manager at the time of the inspection. 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 care safely. There were enough vetted and suitable staff available to deliver support safely. People’s risks were identified, assessed and mitigated. People received their medicines in line with the prescriber’s instructions and the home environment was routinely checked to ensure good hygiene and fire safety.

The support people received continued to be effective as a result of the supervision, support and training staff received. People were cared for in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People ate well and received the support they required to eat and drink safely. People had regular and timely access to healthcare services and professionals and people had a record of their health conditions available should they be admitted to hospital.

People told us they liked the registered manager and staff and said they were caring. People were supported to maintain important relationships and regularly met family and friends. Staff promoted people’s independence and dignity and respected people’s privacy.

The service continued to be responsive to people’s individual needs. People’s needs were assessed and staff had guidance in care records on meeting people’s needs in a person centred way. People choices and preferences were clearly documented. People were supported to participate in a range of activities and the service prevented people becoming socially isolated. People were encouraged to share their views about the service and were supported to complain when they were dissatisfied.

The service remained well-led. The registered manager was held in high regard by people and staff. The service had a relaxed atmosphere and staff told us they enjoyed working at the service. Robust quality assurance checks were in place and the provider worked with other organisations to ensure that people receive good quality care.

Up to date, individual support agreements were in place for people using the service which addressed their care and support needs and protected them from risks.

The service worked in partnership with other providers to ensure people's health, safety and welfare needs were met. We saw positive comments from health and social care professionals who visited the home. One person commented, 'Well done to all the staff team at Gaywood Street for the level of care and compassion for clients.' Another said, 'Excellent team work and consistent dedication.'

There were appropriate arrangements for the safe administration of medicines.

Staff received appropriate induction, professional development, supervision and appraisal.

There was a process for dealing with complaints and this was in an accessible format for people using the service.

The evidence we received from the provider demonstrated that there were appropriate supervision and appraisal arrangements in place to support staff in relation to their responsibilities and protect people from unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment

However, we found that the provider was unable to demonstrate that suitable arrangements were in place ensure that all staff are appropriately supported in relation to their responsibilities by receiving appropriate supervision and appraisal. This may put people at risk.