Background to this inspection
Updated
9 January 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 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 was a comprehensive inspection that took place on 6 December 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.
Before the inspection 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. We also reviewed information that we held about the service such as notifications, which are events which happened in the service that the provider is required to tell us about, and information that had been sent to us by other agencies. We also contacted commissioners of adult social care services (who fund the care package provided for people) of the service and external health and social care professionals for their views about the service. We received feedback from a social worker and a community psychiatric nurse.
The day before the inspection we contacted two relatives by telephone for their views and feedback about the service their family member received.
On the day of the inspection we spoke with three people who used the service for their views about the service they received. During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager and four support workers. We looked at all or parts of the care records of three people, along with other records relevant to the running of the service. This included how people were supported with their medicines, quality assurance audits, training information for staff and recruitment and deployment of staff, meeting minutes, policies and procedures and arrangements for managing complaints.
After the inspection we contacted a further relative and a friend of a person who used the service.
Updated
9 January 2018
We inspected the service on 6 December 2017. The inspection was unannounced.
Woodhouse Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Woodhouse Road accommodates eight people living with learning disabilities and an autistic spectrum disorder. On the day of our inspection seven people were living at the service.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
At our last inspection in October 2015, the service was rated 'Good'. At this inspection we found that the service remained 'Good’.
The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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. However, at the time of our inspection the registered manager had left the service to manage a different service within the organisation. A new manager was in place who had submitted their registered manager application, we are monitoring this.
People remained safe because they were supported by staff who knew how to recognise abuse and understood their role and responsibility in protecting them from avoidable harm. Risks in
relation to people's needs including the environment were assessed, planed and monitored. There were sufficient staff employed to support people. People received their prescribed medicines safely. People lived in a clean, hygienic service. Staff supported people effectively during periods of anxiety that affected their mood and behaviour. Accidents and incidents were reported, monitored and reviewed to consider the action required to reduce further reoccurrence.
People continued to receive an effective service because their needs were assessed and understood by staff. Staff received an appropriate induction, ongoing training and supervision that supported them to meet people’s needs effectively. People’s dietary needs had been assessed and planned for and they received a choice of meals and drinks. Systems were in place to share relevant information with other organisations to ensure people’s needs were known and understood. People were supported to access healthcare services and their health needs had been assessed and were monitored. The premise met people’s current needs and discussions had commenced with the landlord about ensuring people’s future needs could be met. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were followed when decisions were made about people’s care. Applications had been made when required to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards supervisory body. However, improvements were required to ensure when an application had been made they had been received by the supervisory body.
People continued to receive good care. People were involved as fully as possible in their care and support and staff respected their privacy and dignity. Independence was promoted and staff had a good understanding of people’s diverse needs, preferences, routines and personal histories. People were supported to access independent advocacy service when required.
People continued to receive a responsive service. People who used the service had opportunities to contribute to their assessment and reviews of their care and support. People’s support plans focussed on their individual needs, creating a person centred approach in the delivery of care and support. People were supported to achieve their goals and aspirations and lead active and fulfilling lives. People had access to the registered provider’s complaints procedure. People’s end of life wishes had been discussed with them.
The service continued to be well-led. There was an open and transparent culture in the service where people were listened to and staff were valued. Staff spoke positively about the new manager who had a plan of how they wished to improve and develop the service. People who used the service knew who the manager was and were confident they managed the service well. There were systems and processes in place to monitor quality and safety and these were being further developed in some areas.