University Care 2

Updated 12 April 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

Our inspection was completed by one adult social care inspector.

Service and service type:

University Care 2 is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

This comprehensive inspection was announced. We gave the registered manager 48 hours’ notice, this was because this is a small service and we wanted to be sure people would be available when we inspected.

What we did:

To assist us in the planning of the inspection, we used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed information that we held about the service such as notifications. These are events that happen in the service that the provider is required to tell us about. We sought the views of the local authority and commissioning teams, and Healthwatch Nottinghamshire, who are an independent organisation that represents people using health and social care services. Commissioners are people who work to find appropriate care and support services which are paid for by the local authority or by a health clinical commissioning group.

During the inspection, we spoke with two people who used the service. After the inspection, we contacted a relative of a person who used the service for their views. We spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager and two support workers. We looked at the care records of three people who used the service. We checked that the care they received matched the information in their records. We also looked at a range of information to consider how the service ensured the quality of the service; these included the management of medicines, staff training records, staff recruitment and support, audits and checks on the safety of the environment, policies and procedures, complaints and meeting records. After the inspection the registered manager sent us further information within the time scale allowed in relation to, the provider’s quality checks, improvement plan and meeting records. We have reviewed these as part of the inspection process.

Updated 12 April 2019

About the service:

University Care 2 is a care home that provides personal care for up to four people and supports people living with learning disabilities, complex needs, including people living with mental health needs. The accommodation consists of a detached house in Beeston in Nottingham. At the time of our inspection four people were living at the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support in the following ways; promotion of choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

People were positive about living at the service, they felt staff understood their needs and treated them very well, supporting them to remain safe. The provider had safeguarding policies and procedures and had provided staff with safeguarding training. Risks associated with people’s physical and mental health needs had been assessed. People and their relatives where appropriate, had been involved in discussions and decisions in how staff supported people with known risks. Risks were continually monitored and risk assessments, and guidance for staff were updated when required. Staff had a positive approach to risk taking and worked with people to achieve good outcomes. People lived in an environment that was maintained well and to a high standard. Health and safety checks were completed on a regular basis. Systems and procceses were in place to report and review incidents and complaints.

People’s prescribed medicines were managed and administrated following national best practice guidance. Staff had the required guidance to safely and effectively support people with their medicines. This included training and their competency assessed. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff, an on-call manager rota ensured additional staff could be called upon at any time. Staff skill mix such as experience was considered by the management team when developing the staff rota. Robust staff recruitment procedures were used to ensure only suitable staff were employed.

People were supported by staff effectively because they had received training the provider had identified as required. Staff were also supported by a management team who were experienced and knowledgeable.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Personal autonomy was encouraged and supported.

People were supported with dietary needs and were involved in menu planning. People’s health was monitored and people had access to health services. Independence was promoted and people’s life style choices were supported. Social inclusion was achieved, people were active citizens in their community and participated in recreational and leisure activities and interests. People accessed the local community independently and had no restrictions placed upon them of when they returned. Where people required staff support to access the community this was provided when people requested it.

People received opportunities to share their experience about the service via house meetings and informally by talking with staff. Plans were in place to send an annual survey to people, relatives, staff and external professionals as part of the provider’s quality assurance process.

The provider regularly visited the service and a range of audits and checks were completed to ensure quality and safety. The provider had an improvement plan and staff felt valued and involved in the development of the service.

Rating at last inspection:

This was the provider’s first inspection since registration.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on when the service was registered.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.