Saxon Close

Updated 30 August 2018

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.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 26 July 2018 and was unannounced. It was carried out by one inspector.

Prior to the inspection we looked at information we held about the service and used this information as part of our inspection planning. The information included notifications. Notifications are information on important events that happen in the service that the provider is required by law to notify us about.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. 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.

During our visit we observed how the staff interacted with people who lived at Saxon Close. We met all the people who lived there, although some of them went out for the day shortly after our arrival. As people were not able to tell us about their experiences in detail, we observed the interactions between them and staff. We looked at two people’s care records as well as other records and systems relating to the management of the service. These included systems relating to the management of medicines, meeting minutes and audits that had been carried out to check the quality of the service being provided.

After the inspection we contacted some of the local authorities responsible for commissioning the service for people living at Saxon Close to seek their view about the care provided.

Updated 30 August 2018

Saxon Close is a residential care home for up to six people with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum conditions. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the service.

At our last inspection we rated the service as ‘good’. 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.

The people who lived at the service that we met were unable to tell us about their experiences in detail, so we observed the support they received and their interactions with staff to help us understand.

People using the service appeared to feel safe and were clearly comfortable in the presence of staff. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs of abuse and they felt confident in how to report these types of concerns. People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as possible whilst also remaining safe. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these with people’s rights to take risks and remain independent.

There were sufficient numbers of skilled staff on duty to support people to have their needs met safely. Effective recruitment processes were in place to ensure only suitable staff were employed.

Medicines were managed safely and administered as prescribed and in a way that met people’s individual preferences. The service was clean and people were protected from the risk of infection.

Staff understood and worked in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. 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.

Staff received an induction process and on-going training. They had completed training related to the specific needs of the people using the service to ensure that they were able to provide skilled care based on current good practice. They were also supported with regular supervisions and annual performance reviews (appraisals).

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and were involved in making choices about meals.

People were supported to access a variety of health professionals when required, including opticians, doctors and specialist nurses to make sure that they received appropriate healthcare to meet their needs.

Staff provided support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support. Where people were unable to be involved, the reason for this was recorded and care plans were written in people’s best interests in consultation with people who knew them well.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained and staff treated them with kindness and respect. Care plans were written in a person-centred way and were responsive to people’s needs. People were supported to follow their interests and join in activities.

People were supported to make complaints by staff who understood the ways in which people communicated that they were unhappy about something. There was a complaints procedure in place and accessible to all. Complaints had been responded to appropriately.

Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive continuous improvement. The registered manager and the provider promoted a person centred service and people were supported to share their views of the support provided.