We carried out a review of the data available to us about Allendale Residential 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 Allendale Residential, you can give feedback on this service.
Allendale Residential is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to five people. People who used the service predominately had a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were four people who used the service.
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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were kept safe because staff understood how to recognise possible signs of abuse and the actions they needed to take if people were at risk of harm.
People’s risks were assessed in a way that kept them safe whilst promoting and enabling people to be as independent as possible.
We found that there were enough suitably qualified staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. The registered manager made changes to staffing levels when people’s needs changed.
We found medicines were managed in a way that kept people safe from potential harm.
Staff were trained to carry out their role and the provider had safe recruitment procedures that ensured people were supported by suitable staff.
Staff had a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA and the DoLS set out the requirements that ensure where appropriate decisions are made in people’s best interests where they are unable to do this for themselves. People’s capacity to make specific decisions had been assessed and staff knew how to support people in a way that was in their best interests.
People were supported with their individual nutritional needs and staff supported people to maintain a healthy diet. People were able to access health services when needed with support from staff.
People were treated with care, kindness and respect and staff promoted people's independence and their right to privacy was upheld.
People were supported to be involved in hobbies and interests that were important to them.
People and their relatives were involved in the planning of their care and people’s preferences in care were gained and followed by staff.
The provider had a complaints procedure that was available to people in a format that they understood. There was a system in place to investigate and respond to complaints received.
People, relatives and staff told us that the registered manager was approachable and they were encouraged to provide feedback on the service provided. The registered manager had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.
The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to five people who may have a physical or learning disability. At the time of our inspection the service had recently started to provide a service to one person within the last two weeks. This meant we were unable to provide a rating for the service at the time of the inspection as there was not sufficient evidence to us to assess whether the service was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led. We will provide a rating at our next inspection.
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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
We found that the person using the service was kept safe because staff understood how to recognise possible signs of abuse and the actions they needed to take if they had any concerns. Risks were assessed in a way that kept them safe whilst promoting their independence.
Medicines were administered in a safe way. There were systems were in place to ensure people were protected from risks associated with medicines management.
We found that there were enough suitably qualified staff available. Staff were trained to carry out their role and the provider had safe recruitment procedures that ensured staff were suitable to provide support to vulnerable people.
Staff had a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA and the DoLS set out the requirements that ensure where appropriate decisions are made in people’s best interests where they are unable to do this for themselves. We found that capacity assessments had been carried out and staff knew how to support people in a way that was in their best interests
The individual nutritional needs of the person who used the service were met and they were able to access other health services with support from staff.
We saw staff were kind and compassionate. Staff were respectful and promoted privacy when providing care.
Preferences in care were recorded throughout the care plan we viewed and we saw opportunities to be involved with activities and accessing the community were provided.
The provider had a complaints procedure in place, which was available to people and their relatives.
Staff told us that the registered manager was approachable and led the team well. Staff were enthusiastic about their role and what their support meant for people.
The registered manager had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. However, we were unable to assess the effectiveness of these systems as these had not been fully implemented because the service had only recently started to provide a service.