Delbrook House

Updated 18 August 2017

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.

This full comprehensive inspection took place on 17 July 2017 and was completed by one adult social care inspector. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the location was a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

The registered provider had been asked to provide a Provider Information Report (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We checked our systems for any notifications that had been sent in as these would tell us how the registered provider managed incidents and accidents that affected the welfare of people who used the service.

Prior to the inspection, we spoke with the local authority safeguarding team and the contracts and commissioning team about their views of the service. We also received information from health and social care professionals who visited the service.

During the inspection, we observed how staff interacted with people who used the service throughout the day. We were able to speak with all five people who used the service. We spoke with the registered manager, a director of the service, two support workers and a social care professional. The day after the inspection, we spoke with one relative.

We looked at specific care records relating to three people who used the service. We also looked at other important documentation relating to people who used the service. These included medication administration records (MARs) for four people. We looked at how the service used the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that when people were assessed as lacking capacity to make their own decisions, best interest meetings were held in order to make important decisions on their behalf.

We looked at a selection of documentation relating to the management and running of the service. These included recruitment files for two staff, training records, the staff rota, menus, minutes of meetings with staff and people who used the service, quality assurance audits and maintenance of equipment records.

We completed a tour of the environment.

Updated 18 August 2017

Delbrook House is a small service which provides personal care and support for up to six people who are living with low level needs associated with learning difficulties. The building consists of two adjoining houses and rooms are spacious with high ceilings. Bedrooms are for single occupancy and each person has their own en-suite facilities of a shower, toilet and sink or bath/shower rooms identified for their sole use. Communal rooms consist of a spacious sitting room with a dining area at one end and another quiet room.

At the last inspection, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’ overall, although we judged the responsive domain ‘Outstanding’.

We found people were supported to live their lives and access community facilities in such a way that it had impacted very positively on their emotional and social wellbeing. They had an excellent quality of life and attended functions, events that interested them and had memorable holidays funded by the provider. Staff supported people to nurture family relationships and friendships, and assisted them with important lifestyle decisions.

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. People were complimentary about the staff and told us they looked after them well and respected their privacy and dignity. We saw people had weekly plans of activities in the service and in the community.

Assessments and care plans were very person-centred and evidenced that people had been involved as much as possible and included in decisions about their life. The care plans were detailed and gave very good information to staff in how to support people in the way they preferred. The local authority contracts and commissioning team had recently visited the service and told us they were ‘very impressed’ with the care plans and the level of detail included in them.

We found there were sufficient members of staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff had been recruited safely with employment checks carried out before they started work. Staff had access to a range of training and received supervision and support on a daily basis. Those staff spoken with told us they felt confident supporting people and meeting their assessed needs.

Staff had received training in how to keep people safe from the risk of harm and abuse; it was clear they knew what to do if they had concerns or if they witnessed abuse or poor practice. Staff completed risk assessments to help minimise risk whilst still enabling people to have control over their lives.

Medication was well managed and people received their medicines as prescribed.

The environment was clean and tidy. Equipment used in the service was maintained and any repairs completed in a timely way.

People’s health and nutritional needs were met. Staff supported people to attend appointments with health professionals in the community. The menus provided people with a well-balanced and nutritious diet, whilst still allowing for treats.

There was a complaints procedure in an easy read format and people told us they felt able to raise concerns when needed and these would be addressed.

The registered manager was very passionate about providing an inclusive atmosphere for people who used the service. They encouraged people to express their views on a daily basis about the running of the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.