The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Royal Mencap Society - 22 Queensberry Road

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

22 Queensberry Road, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 7HL (01536) 415201

Provided and run by:
Royal Mencap Society

All Inspections

25 July 2017

During a routine inspection

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to five people living with learning disabilities. Accommodation was provided in a detached house in a residential area of Kettering, Northamptonshire. At this inspection, there were five people living in the service.

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection on 25 August 2015, the service was rated Good in all domains. At this inspection we found the service remained Good in Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive but required improvement in Well-led.

The service was kept clean, but guidance about safe cleaning methods using mops and buckets was not always followed. We made a recommendation about this.

Care plans were focused on people’s needs and how they should be supported. However further action was needed to ensure that information in different parts of people’s care plans was consistent.

People were supported to stay healthy and to access healthcare services when they needed them. However, a person had not been informed about a health screening programme they had been invited to participate in two consecutive years. We made a recommendation that the provider has systems in place to ensure that invitations to people to participate in health screening programmes are acted upon.

The service 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.

People continued to be safe at 22 Queensbury Road. People were protected against the risk of abuse. People felt safe in the service. Staff recognised the signs of abuse or neglect and what to look out for. Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed.

Staff followed appropriate guidance to minimise identified risks to people's health, safety and welfare. There were enough staff to keep people safe. The provider had appropriate arrangements in place to check the suitability and fitness of new staff to work at the service.

Each person had an up to date, personalised support plan, which set out how their care and support needs should be met by staff. These were reviewed regularly. Staff received regular training and supervision to help them to meet people's needs effectively.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs.

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 were caring and treated people with dignity and respect and ensured people's privacy was maintained particularly when being supported with their personal care needs. 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 encouraged people to actively participate in activities, pursue their interests and to maintain relationships with people that mattered to them.

The registered manager ensured the complaints procedure was made available to people to enable them to make a complaint if they needed to. Regular checks and reviews of the service continued to be made to ensure people experienced good quality safe care and support.

The registered manager checked staff were focussed on people experiencing good quality care and support. People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about how the service could be improved. This was used to make changes and improvements that people wanted.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

25th August 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on the 25th August 2015 and was unannounced.

The home provides care and support for people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were 5 people living there.

There was a registered manager in post 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.

There were appropriate recruitment processes in place and people felt safe in the home. Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people and knew how to respond if they had any concerns. There were enough staff deployed to support the individual needs of people.

Staff were supported through regular supervisions and undertook training which focussed on helping them to understand the needs of the people they were supporting. People were involved in decisions about the way in which their care and support was provided. Staff understood the need to undertake specific assessments where people lacked capacity to consent to their care and / or their day to day routines. People’s health care and nutritional needs were carefully considered and relevant health care professionals were appropriately involved in people’s care.

People received support and care from staff that were kind, considerate and respectful. Their needs were assessed prior to coming to the home and individualised support and care plans were in place and were kept under review. Staff had taken time to understand peoples likes, dislikes and enabled people to participate in activities either on an individual basis or within groups.

People were cared for by staff who were respectful of their dignity and who demonstrated an understanding of each person’s needs. This was evident in the way staff spoke to people and the activities they encouraged and supported individuals with. Relatives spoke positively about the care and support their relative was receiving and felt that they could approach management and staff to discuss any issues or concerns they had.

The manager was approachable and open to feedback; actively enabling staff to look at ways to improve and develop the service and liaising with commissioners to secure the necessary funding to ensure people had as full and enriching life as possible. There were a variety of audits in place and action was taken to address any shortfalls.

8 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with one of the four people who used the service and looked at the care plans of all four people. The person we spoke with told us that they enjoyed living at the home and that they particularly enjoyed the activities that had been made available to them. They told us about the activities they had enjoyed that day. We found from looking at care plans and other records that the service had supported people to take part in a wide range of activities at the home and in the community. People who used the service had been supported to maintain and increase their independence through practical and meaningful activities at the home, for example making their own drinks, packed lunches and cleaning.

We found that people's health needs were met because staff monitored people's health and were attentive to changes in people's wellbeing. Staff at the home had ensured that people attended health centre and hospital appointments and received visits from other health professionals.

At the time of our inspection the home's registered manager had been seconded to another service run by the provider. The service was being managed by a experienced senior care worker until the registered manager was expected to return in April 2014.

22 January 2013

During a routine inspection

Four people lived at the home at the time of our inspection. Three people were attending community day centres when we visited the home but we were able to talk with one person who had decided to stay at home. That person told us that they liked living at the home and they were complimentary about the staff who supported them. They told us that they liked their room and invited us to view the room. The room was personalised to the person's taste. That person told us that staff had supported them to lead as active a life as possible both at the home where they assisted staff with meaningful domestic tasks and in the community.

We saw plenty of evidence that all of the people who used the service had been supported to partake in their interests and hobbies. People's health and welfare needs had been met because staff supported people to attend visits to health professionals that included dentists, chiropodists, opticians and GPs. Nurses and other health professionals had visited the home to attend to people's needs.