We carried out a review of the data available to us about Ms June Dunne - 26 Huntly Road 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 Ms June Dunne - 26 Huntly Road, you can give feedback on this service.
The service provides accommodation and personal care for a maximum of three people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection, there were two people using the service.
This was an announced inspection which took place on 13 August 2018. The last inspection was in January 2016 when the service was rated ‘Good’.
26 Huntly Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The service had a manager in post who both owned and resided at the premises. A 'registered' manager is not required for this service as the service was managed by the owner (provider).
At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of ‘Good’ and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
Care records contained detailed information to identify people’s requirements and preferences in relation to their care. People had a choice in how they lived their lives at the home. Risks were appropriately assessed and documented in care records.
Accidents and incidents were recorded and managed appropriately.
There were enough staff to meet the needs of the people living at the home. Care was provided on a one to one basis.
We found that staff’s suitability to work with vulnerable adults at the home had been checked prior to employment. For instance, previous employer references had been sought and a criminal conviction check undertaken.
Appropriate arrangements were in place for checking the environment was safe. There were external contracts in place to check the safety of gas, electric and fire equipment.
Medication was managed safely and was administered by staff who were competent to do so.
Staff had received training which equipped them with the knowledge and skills to ensure people received adequate care. Staff were supported to do their job role through training and supervision.
Staff sought consent from people before providing support. Staff we spoke with understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure people consented to the care they received. The MCA is legislation which protects the powers of people to make their own decisions.
People were appropriately supported with their dietary needs and had choice about what they wanted to eat and drink.
Staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect.
Staff used Makaton (a form of sign language) to communicate with people who were unable to communicate verbally.
People were supported to access external heath care services to promote their well-being.
People were involved in their care and we saw evidence that people’s hobbies and interests were recorded and catered for.
Feedback regarding the management of the home was positive. The manager was committed to continuous improvement.
26 Huntly Road is a residential service which provides accommodation and personal care for a maximum of three people. At the time of the inspection two people were living at the home.
A registered manager is not required for this service.
People told us they felt safe living at the home. Risk was appropriately assessed and recorded in care records. People were involved in decisions about their care and taking risks.
Accidents and incidents were recorded in appropriate detail and assessed by the manager.
The home had sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people living there. There was minimum of one member of staff per shift with extra provision depending on activities.
Staff were recruited subject the completion of appropriate checks and references.
The home had a robust approach to safety monitoring and employed external contractors to service and check; gas safety, electrical safety and fire equipment. We saw that checks had been completed in each area in 2015.
We saw that medicines were stored safely and securely in their room and that staff maintained a detailed record of administration.
Staff clearly had the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of people living at the home. The induction process required them to complete a programme of e-learning (on-line courses), face to face sessions with the manager and a period of shadowing (working along-side and experienced colleague) before being offered a permanent position.
Staff demonstrated that they understood the key principles of the MCA and delivered care and support in accordance with the act. All of the people currently being provided with services had capacity or had a nominated person to speak on their behalf.
The people living at the home were actively involved in choices about food and drink and had free access to the kitchen.
Throughout the inspection we observed staff interacting with people in a manner which was kind, compassionate and caring.
People were consistently involved in their own care and contributed to making decisions based on information provided by staff. Staff adapted their communication style to meet the needs of the individual.
People’s individual preferences and personalities were reflected in the decoration of their bedrooms.
People living at the home had care delivered only when it was needed. They were encouraged to be as independent as possible and received staff interventions on request or when staff assessed that support was required. Staff knew the needs and preferences of each person and responded with confidence when care or communication was required.
The home had a clear and consistent vision and strong values. We saw that these values were applied in communication with people and in the delivery of care and support.
Staff were clearly motivated to do their jobs and enjoyed working at the home.
When asked the staff about what it was like working at 26 Huntly Road comments included:
'We all get on well, service users are lovely'
'To be in this job you have to have a caring nature'you're here for the service user's needs; they're (our) main priority'.
We found people lived in a comfortable and homely atmosphere.
The food served at the care home met people's tastes and choices. One person we spoke with said the food was, "Good".
Staff were recruited in a robust manner to protect people who used the service.
Plans of care had been developed in an individual way to demonstrate how people received care that was tailored to their needs.
The owner told us the home is run as a normal domestic household. Both people who live at the home have been there for over 12 years and one for over 20 years. A staff member said, "It' one big family." The owner told us they all do things as part of the family.
The staff we spoke to told us this is a good home to work in and felt supported in
carrying out their roles. A staff member said, "It's great with being a small family home, we have a lot of time to spend with the two ladies."
People who live at the home have limited communication so we relied on observations between staff and people who live there. At the time of the visit a member of staff was making dinner being helped by a person living at the home.The owner said, "We all get along fine and only wants whats best for D..... and V......"
As part of the review process we spoke to social services for a view of how the home
operates, and they told us they had no issues in respect of the delivery of care or any safeguarding concerns.