Shaftesbury Brookside House

Livability Brookside House is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up 24 people living with physical disabilities, sensory impairment and learning disabilities. The service is run by Livability, a charitable organisation that provides care services nationally.

Brookside House accommodates up to 24 people in one adapted building. People live in their own apartments with private living and bathroom facilities. There is a large communal living and dining area.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence.

People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 24 people. 20 people were using the service when we inspected. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area with access to local services and public transport. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People benefited from an exceptionally caring service. The management team and staff really cared for the people they were supporting. They advocated for the people living at Brookside House. We heard of many examples were people benefited from the caring and dedicated nature of staff.

Staff were committed to ensuring people's wishes at the end of their lives were respected and that people were able to die with dignity and amongst people who they knew and who knew them well.

People were valued and placed at the centre of the service. People were supported to be active in the running of the home.

Staff promoted people’s privacy and dignity, enabling them to make choices and have as much control and independence as possible. They had gone the extra mile and used innovation and technology to do this.

The service sought to offer people new experiences, through a wide range of individual activities which were meaningful to them. Staff actively supported people to gain independence and learn life skills. People were encouraged to identify and follow pursuits that interested them.

The environment was warm and homely, and designed to promote the independence and quality of life of the people living there.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Detailed care plans and risk assessments were in place for people using the service and were reviewed and updated regularly.

Staff were well trained, skilled and motivated to deliver a high-quality level of care. Staff had received training tailored to people's individual care needs.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services. Staff worked with a range of health professionals to ensure they knew people's care needs. Medicines were managed safely.

Staffing levels were enough to ensure that people’s needs were met. Staff were safely recruited.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 27 February 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

The previous inspection was on the 15 January 2014 where all standards inspected were met.

Brookside House is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 24 people living with physical disabilities, sensory impairment and learning disabilities. The service is part of Livability a charitable organisation that provides care services nationally.

There is 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 told us they were happy living at Brookside House, there was a friendly and welcoming attitude from the registered manager and care staff. There was an ethos that this was people’s homes and that they should be central to any decisions made about what took place there. The registered manager told staff to keep any stresses of running the service in the office and that it should not affect people in their home.

People told us they felt safe at the service and we saw that staff had a good understanding of safeguarding adults and the management team had ensured people understood their rights to a safe and happy life at the service. This had included people living at the service attending safeguarding training and making reporting concerns easier for people to do. Any complaints or concerned raised were responded to and addressed appropriately by the registered manager.

We observed staff to be respectful and proactive they offered support in a caring manner. There were conversations between staff and people whilst undertaking tasks and this promoted a friendly atmosphere in the service.

There were enough staff to meet people’s support needs and there were robust recruitment processes for permanent staff and checks of agency staff documentation before they worked in the service. Staff told us they were well supported by the management team and had received training to support them to undertake their work. Training had included workshops about specific medical conditions that affected some people and they had been invited to attend and share their experiences with other staff to promote greater understanding.

Senior staff were trained to administer medicines and medicine administration records were completed appropriately and were audited to ensure mistakes were not made. People’s care plans described how they showed pain and staff asked people if they required their pain relief to ensure they were pain free. There were no descriptions of the medicines use and side effects in people’s records however we found senior staff were knowledgeable about people’s medicines. The registered manager agreed to ensure medicine information was included in the records as good practice for staff reference.

The registered manager demonstrated they understood their responsibility to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had received training and obtained people’s consent before supporting them.

There was a variety of meaningful activities for people to attend both inside the service and in the local area. There was a focus on promoting people’s independence and initiatives had taken place utilising assisted technology in a pilot project. People had their own flat with accessible kitchen and bathroom facilities and good support was given by staff to personalise their flats to their own specification.

People told us they were involved with their care planning and that care was provided as they wanted it to be. We saw that care plans were specific to people’s needs, however care plans did not record people’s involvement so we brought this to the manager’s attention who agreed to address this.

There were robust systems of auditing by the service and the provider to ensure the standard of care given. Auditing by the provider included twice yearly visits by the resident’s engagement officer to ensure people felt they received the care and support they needed.

People felt staff treated them with dignity and respect, and they told us that they were involved in how their care was planned and delivered. One person said 'I'm treated very well here.'

People's privacy and dignity was respected in the manner staff spoke and interacted with them. We observed staff speaking to people in a caring and calm manner.

We found that care was planned in an individualised way that took account of people's preferences and that changes in a person's condition were accommodated in the care planning process. Risk assessments were in place and these ensured people who used the service were cared for safely.

There was a system in place that ensured that all medicines were provided in a way that was safe and adhered to guidance from manufactures and prescribers.

We found that suitably experienced staff were on duty in sufficient numbers to provide safe care to people using the service.

Systems were in place to monitor and to make improvements to the quality of care and support provided to people by the home. Staff said that they felt supported by the service and that they felt able to approach their registered manager with any concerns, knowing they would be acted on.

People's privacy and dignity were respected in the manner staff spoke and interacted with them. We observed staff speaking to people in a caring and calm manner

There were systems in place to ensure that people were protected from abuse and that they received the care they needed. Systems were in place to monitor and to make improvements to the quality of care and support provided to people by the home.

Most staff felt supported by the service and said they felt able to approach their manager with any concerns, knowing this would be acted on.