This inspection took place on 24th and 25th November 2014 and was unannounced. Low House provides care and accommodation for up to seven people. The home specialises in the care of people who have a forensic learning disability and supported men with a range of criminal offences. Some people who used the service were detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.
On the day of our inspection there were a total of six people using the service.
The home had a registered manager in place. 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.
On the day of the inspection there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the home and we saw staff interacted with people in a very friendly and respectful manner. One person told us, “I love living here, I feel very safe and I don’t want to leave.” Another said, “For the first time in my life I feel safe.”
The six staff we spoke with described the management of the home as open and approachable. Throughout the day we saw that people and staff appeared very comfortable and relaxed with the registered manager on duty.
People had their psychological and mental health needs monitored. There were regular reviews of people’s health and the service responded to people’s changing needs. People were assisted to attend appointments with various health and social care professionals to ensure they received care, treatment and support for their specific conditions.
People said staff were, "Great” and “mint”. On three recent surveys we saw a professional reported that the service was “focused on providing a person-centred care and it achieved great results.”
A clinician quoted, “This is an impressive provider that delivers an excellent service.” Another quoted, “People are involved in decisions, and there is a good range of activities and educational opportunities. The ethos of care is very positive.”
We saw people’s care plans were very person centred and clearly described their care, treatment and support needs. These were regularly evaluated, reviewed and updated. The care plan format was easy for people who used the service to understand by using of lots of pictures and symbols. We saw lots of evidence to demonstrate that people were involved in all aspects of their care plans. For example, one person told us, “I help my key worker to keep mine up to date and I am always fully involved when I have my review meeting with my consultant and social worker.”
All staff we spoke with said they received appropriate training, good support and regular supervision. We saw records to support this.
Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. We spoke with four staff and all were clear about how to report any concerns. Staff said they were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to ensure people were protected.
Throughout both days we saw staff interacting with people in a very caring and professional way.
We noted that throughout the day when staff offered support to people they always respected their wishes. For example, during lunch, everyone was asked what they would like to eat and were offered various choices for people to choose from.
We saw activities were personalised for each person. People also made suggestions about activities and outings during house meetings. Where necessary additional staff were provided to enable people to access community facilities appropriate to their ages and abilities.
All people received one to one support for their health, personal care and support needs, and this enabled regular community support on a daily basis. For example, work placements, education and leisure. On the day of our inspection, two people were escorted to go football training and others were working in the gardens.
People received a wholesome and balanced diet in pleasant surroundings and at times convenient to them.
We saw the provider had policies and procedures for dealing with medicines and these were adhered to.
The provider had an effective pictorial complaints procedure which people felt they were able to use.
We saw people who used the service were supported and protected by the provider’s recruitment policy and practices.
The home was immaculately clean and well maintained, and equipment used was regularly serviced.
The provider had a quality assurance system in place, which was based on seeking the views of people, their relatives and other health and social care professionals. There was a systematic cycle of planning, action and review, reflecting aims and outcomes for people who used the service.