Archived: Royal Mencap Society - 27 Larchwood Close

Royal Mencap Society (RMS) 27 Larchwood Close is a large, detached house that can provide accommodation for up to seven adults with learning disabilities. It is situated in a residential area of Banstead, Surrey. At the time of inspection, there were six people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The home was light and airy. Good adaptations had been made for people with mobility needs, such as rails on stairs. The manager and staff worked well to keep the environment clean and feeling homely for people, although the décor of the building looked tired. People were positive about their experiences at the home. One person said, “It’s nice and cosy and staff are friendly.” A relative said, “It’s as close to a normal home life as you can get.” Staff said, “I’m so privileged to do this job.”

The inspection took place on 01 December 2015 and was unannounced. At our previous inspection in December 2013 we had identified no concerns at the home.

There was positive feedback about the home and caring nature of staff from people and their relatives. One person said, “Staff are good, they help me and I like them.” When asked if anything could be improved they said, “No, I think they are doing all right.” A relative said, “Staff are caring and they get on well with people. They are attentive and keep us informed.”

People were safe at Royal Mencap Society – 27 Larchwood Close. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet the needs and preferences of the people that lived there. One person said, “They are always here when I need them.”

Risks of harm to people had been identified and clear plans and guidelines were in place to minimise these risks, without restricting people’s freedom. One person said, “Staff explained to me how I could keep myself safe.” Staff understood their duty should they suspect abuse was taking place, including the agencies that needed to be notified, such as the local authority safeguarding team or the police.

In the event of an emergency people would be protected because there were clear procedures in place to evacuate the building. Each person had a plan which detailed the support they needed to get safely out of the building in an emergency.

The provider had carried out appropriate recruitment checks to ensure staff were suitable to support people in the home. Staff received a comprehensive induction and ongoing training so they had the skills needed to support the individual needs of people.

People received their medicines when they needed them. Staff managed the medicines in a safe way and were trained in the safe administration of medicines. The registered manager carried out regular checks of staff’s competency when they gave medicine to people.

Where people did not have the capacity to understand or consent to a decision the provider had followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). An appropriate assessment of people’s ability to make decisions for themselves had been completed. People told us that staff did ask their permission before they provided care.

Where people’s liberty may be restricted to keep them safe, the provider had followed the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure the person’s rights were protected.

People had enough to eat and drink, and received support from staff where a need had been identified. One person said, “The food is nice here. It’s different every day. People’s special dietary needs were clearly documented and staff ensured these needs were met.

People were supported to maintain good health as they had access to relevant healthcare professionals when they needed them. One person said, “I tell them if I don’t feel well, they listen to me and help make me better.” When people’s health deteriorated staff responded quickly to help people and made sure they received appropriate treatment. People’s health was seen to improve due to the care and support staff gave, for example improvements in mobility after an operation.

The staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect. A relative said, “Staff are caring and they all (people and staff) get on really well together.” Good interactions were seen throughout the day of our inspection, such as staff holding people’s hands and sitting and talking with them. People could have visitors from family and friends whenever they wanted.

Care plans were based around the individual preferences of people as well as their medical needs. They gave a good level of detail for staff to reference if they needed to know what support was required. The staff knew the people they cared for as individuals. One person said, “Of course staff know who I am!” when we asked them. People’s involvement in the review and generation of these plans had been recorded. People received the care and support as detailed in their care plans.

People had access to activities that met their needs. People told us about their hobbies and interests and how these were supported by the staff. A wide range of activities were on offer, most of them based in the community. Activities were based around people’s interests and to promote their independence and confidence.

People knew how to make a complaint, and said they had never felt the need to complain. The registered manager explained that complaints (if received) would be discussed with staff to improve the service for everyone.

Quality assurance records were kept up to date to show that the provider had checked on important aspects of the management of the home. Records for checks on health and safety, infection control, and internal medicines audits were all up to date. Accident and incident records were kept, and were analysed and used to improve the care provided to people.

People had the opportunity to be involved in how the home was managed. Meetings and surveys were completed and the feedback was reviewed, and used to improve the service.