Archived: Autism Plus Also known as Wildwinds

Updated 20 September 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.

The inspection took place on 10 August 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection was undertaken by an adult social care inspector.

We looked at the PIR, this is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at the information received about the service from notifications sent to the Care Quality Commission by the registered manager. We also contacted the local authority commissioners for their feedback.

As part of this inspection we spent some time with the four people who used the service, talking with them and observing the support they received. This helped us understand their experience of the service. We looked at documents and records that related to people’s care, including people’s care and support plans, their pictorial person centred plans, behaviour strategy plans, risk profiles, and two people’s medical files.

We spoke with three members of care and support staff, a senior staff member, the registered manager and the team leader. We also spoke briefly with the head of northern services for Autism Plus.

We looked at the systems in place for managing medicines in the home. This included the storage, handling and stock of medicines and medication administration records (MARs) that staff completed. We reviewed records in respect of the management of the service, such as the quality assurance systems and staff recruitment, training and support. This included three staff personnel files, and details of staff recruitment kept electronically by the provider.

Following the visit we spoke with three people’s relatives by telephone to seek their views of the service. We also contacted three health and social care professionals, including a service commissioner, a specialist community nurse, and a social worker.

Updated 20 September 2016

Autism Plus, also known as Wildwinds, is a care home for people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. The home can accommodate five people. The home has communal lounges and a dining room, and people who use the service each have their own bedroom and bathroom. At the time of our visit five people were living at Wildwinds.

The home had a registered manager. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There was a strong, person centred and caring culture in the care and support team. Person centred means that care is tailored to meet the needs and aspirations of each person, as an individual. The vision of the service was shared by the management team and staff.

Staff told us they worked as part of a team, that the home was a good place to work and all staff were committed to providing care that was centred on people’s individual needs. Staff received the training they needed to deliver a high standard of care. They told us that they received a lot of good quality training that was relevant to their job.

Everyone we spoke with including people’s relatives, staff and external professionals said people received individualised care in relation to all of their needs, including their autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). They said the service provided good quality, specialist care for people.

There were effective systems in place to manage risks, safeguarding matters and medication, and this made sure people were kept safe. Where people displayed behaviour that was challenging the training and guidance given to staff helped them to manage situations in a consistent and positive way, which protected people’s dignity and rights.

People received care and support that was responsive to their needs. Care plans provided detailed information about people so staff knew exactly how they wished to be cared for in a personalised way. People were at the forefront of the service and encouraged to develop and maintain their independence. People participated in a wide and varied range of activities. Regular outings were also organised and people were encouraged to pursue their interests and hobbies.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. The members of the management team we spoke with had a full and up to date understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These safeguards protect the rights of adults by ensuring that if there are restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed by appropriately trained professionals. We found that appropriate DoLS applications had been made, and staff were acting in accordance with DoLS authorisations.

We saw that staff recruited had the right values and skills to work with people who used the service. Where any issues regarding safety were identified in the recruitment process, appropriate safeguards had been put in place. Staff rotas showed that the staffing levels remained at the levels required to make sure people’s needs were met and helped to keep them safe.

Systems were in place which continuously assessed and monitored the quality of the service, including obtaining feedback from people who used the service and their relatives. Records showed that systems for recording and managing complaints, safeguarding concerns, incidents and accidents were managed well and that management took steps to learn from such events and put measures in place. This meant that lessons were learnt and similar incidents were less likely to happen again.