Background to this inspection
Updated
30 April 2019
The inspection:
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned based on the rating of the last inspection to check whether the provider continued to meet the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a current rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team:
The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Service and service type:
33 St. Johns Church Road is a care home. People in a care home receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The service had a registered manager. This means that they are registered with the Care Quality Commission and with the registered provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection:
The inspection was unannounced.
What we did:
We reviewed information we had received about the home. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as serious injuries. The provider had completed a Provider Information Return. Providers are required to send us key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.
Not everyone living at 33 St. Johns Church Road could tell us about their experiences living of there. We spoke with two people, and spent time observing staff with people in communal areas during the inspection. We spoke with the registered manager, the provider, three staff and one person’s relative.
During inspection we looked at the following:
We reviewed some records, this included one person's care and medicine records. We looked at supervision and training records of all staff. We reviewed some records relating to the quality and management of risk within the home.
• The environment, including the kitchen, bathrooms and people’s bedrooms
• We met each person and spoke to two people living at the home and one relative
• We spoke to two care workers, one team leader, the deputy manager, the manager and the provider.
• One person’s care records
• A sample of medicines records
• Records of accidents, incidents, complaints and compliments
• A sample of audits
• Deprivation of Liberty records
• Staff training records
• Fire, health and safety and maintenance records
After the inspection we received additional evidence from the registered manager to corroborate aspects of support provided to people at the service.
Updated
30 April 2019
About the service: 33 St. Johns Church Road is a small residential care home providing accommodation, care and support for up to three people with a learning disability and some complex behaviours. At the time of our inspection, three people lived there.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
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; the service accommodated up to three people. There were no signs outside the property to identify it as a care home. People were encouraged to be a part of the local community; attending clubs and music events, visiting local shops and cafes.
People told us they felt safe with staff.
People had good relationships with staff, who were knowledgeable of their physical, emotional and communication needs, as well as likes, dislikes and interests. Staff were responsive to changes in people's health needs, they sought advice from relevant professionals when needed.
People felt included in planning their care. People’s rights and their dignity and privacy were respected.
People were supported to live the lifestyle of their choice. People told us they were listened to by staff, they took part in local community projects and were encouraged to be as independent as possible.
People could involve relatives and others who were important to them when they chose the care they wanted. An advocacy service was used if needed.
People received a person-centred service that met their needs and helped them to achieve their goals and ambitions. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible.
People were fully involved in their care planning and received information in a way they understood. Care plans were consistently reviewed and updated. Care planning informed staff what people could do independently and what staff needed to do to support people.
Staff supported people to maintain a balanced diet and monitored their nutritional health. People had access to GP’s and their health and wellbeing was promoted by prompt referrals and access to medical care if they became unwell.
People were protected from the spread of infection and medicines were stored and managed safely. There were policies and procedures in place for the safe administration of medicines. Staff followed these policies and had been trained to administer medicines safely.
People felt comfortable about raising any complaints with staff and the registered manager.
People were asked for feedback about the service they received.
People found the registered manager approachable and supportive.
The registered manager recruited staff with relevant experience and the right attitude to work with people. New staff were given an induction and on-going training. Staff were deployed in a planned way, with the correct training, skills and experience to meet people’s needs.
The registered manager and provider monitored the service in various ways to ensure they continued to provide a good quality service that maintained people’s safety. The provider visited the service often and knew staff and people using the service well.
The registered manager and staff worked with a clear vision for the service.
More information is in the detailed findings below.
Rating at last inspection: This service was rated, “Good” at the last inspection on 8 December 2015.
Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection to check the service remained Good. We found overall that the service continued to meet the characteristics of Good.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive. We will carry out another scheduled inspection to make sure the service continues to maintain a Good rating.