We carried out a review of the data available to us about Raynel Drive 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 Raynel Drive, you can give feedback on this service.
Raynel Drive is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The care service was developed and designed many years ago. However, the provider was working towards ensuring the service is 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.
Raynel Drive is a short break residential care service which aims to provide a holiday style atmosphere for up to five people who have a learning disability. Accommodation is a house with five bedrooms and bathroom facilities. Communal lounges, kitchen and dining areas are provided.
During our inspection there were four people staying at the respite service. The PIR received from the provider PIR said 54 people accessed the respite services within a 12-month period. At our last inspection the service was rated as good. At this inspection, we found the service remained good.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.
The provider had robust systems and procedures in place to keep people safe. Staff were competent in their knowledge of what constituted abuse and how to safeguard people. There was a whistleblowing policy in place and staff knew how to raise concerns should this be required.
Medicines were managed effectively and they were stored correctly in line with the provider's policy. 'As required' medicines were administered when needed.
Risk assessments had been completed and reviewed regularly. Accidents and incidents were managed effectively and action taken to prevent future risks.
Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs and robust recruitment processes were in place to ensure people were of suitable character. Staff carried out training to ensure they had adequate skills and knowledge to meet people's needs. Staff were supported with regular supervisions and appraisals.
Health and safety checks were completed regularly and staff followed the providers procedures for infection control.
Staff were aware of people's nutritional needs and we found people were offered choices about their food preferences. People also received appropriate support from staff to maintain their health and wellbeing.
The provider followed their legal obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and implemented best practice guidance relating to capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were made.
Staff were caring, kind and respected peoples wishes. We saw people were encouraged to remain as independent as possible and alternative communications were used to allow people to make choices about their care. People's privacy and dignity was respected. Staff knocked on people's doors before entering and respected peoples wishes when providing care.
Pre-admission assessments were carried out before peoples stay to ensure their needs could be met. Care plans were person centred and reviewed regularly or when people's needs changed. Care plans included people's preferences, likes and dislikes.
People accessing the service were supported to participate in activities, to prevent social isolation. The provider had a car which meant people could do activities outside of the local area and facilitated further choice.
The manager and team leader were honest and open. Staff told us they felt supported and felt confident to raise any concerns. Complaints were managed and actions taken to prevent future occurrences.
Regular meetings took place with people, staff and management within the provider's company to obtain feedback and inform people of changes within the organisation.
The provider carried out audits to ensure quality assurance checks had been completed. This meant the provider had oversight of what was happening at the respite service. A customer involvement officer attended the service regularly to gather people's views and ensure actions were taken to improve the quality of care being provided.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Raynel Drive is part of Aspire Community Benefit Society and provides 24 hour personal care and support for up to four people who have learning disabilities and complex needs. The care and support provided is respite (short term).
At the time of the inspection, the service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.
We looked at records relating to the personal care the service was providing and found care was well planned and reviews involved the people receiving care and their families.
At this inspection we found the provider had systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff understood how to keep people safe and knew the people they were supporting very well. People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.
There was enough staff to keep people safe. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place to make sure suitable staff worked with people who used the service. Staff were skilled and experienced to meet people’s needs because they received appropriate training, supervision and appraisal.
We found there were systems in place to protect people from risk of harm. There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Care was personalised and people were well supported. People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. People received good support to make sure their nutritional and health needs were appropriately met.
The service had good management and leadership. Safety checks were carried out around the service and any safety issues were reported and dealt with promptly.
We observed good interactions between staff and people who used the service and the atmosphere was happy, relaxed and inclusive. Staff were aware of the values of the service and knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity.
There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw copies of reports produced by the registered manager and the provider. The reports included any actions required and were checked each month to determine progress. These ensured actions were completed to improve service delivery.
There was a complaints procedure available which enabled people to raise any concerns or complaints about the care or support they received. The people we spoke with told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and would have no hesitation in making a formal complaint if they had any concerns about the standard of care provided