Archived: Ordinary Life Project Association - 3 Mallard Close

Updated 24 December 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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 inspection took place on the 5 November 2015  and was unannounced. The inspection was completed by one inspector.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed all of the information we hold about the service, including previous inspection reports and notifications sent to us by the provider. Notifications are information about specific important events the service is legally required to send to us.

During the visit we spoke with one person who used the service, the registered manager, area manager and two members of staff. We spent time observing the way staff interacted with people who use the service and looked at the records relating to support and decision making for two people. We also looked at records about the management of the service.

Updated 24 December 2015

Ordinary Life Project Association - 3 Mallard Close provides accommodation and personal care for up to four people with learning disabilities. At the time of this inspection two people were living at 3 Mallard Close. The home was last inspected on 28 November, and was found to be meeting all of the standards assessed.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

People were having homely remedies intended for occasional use and for minor ailments daily and over significant periods of time.  This meant people may have a persistent condition that requires the attention of a healthcare professional. Protocols did not say how long people should take these remedies before contacting the GP. Where people were able, they self-administered their medicines with support from the staff. Members of staff were competent in the administration of medicines.

People were aware a complaints procedure was in place and the procedure was in an easy read format. There were no complaints received since the last inspection. The complaints procedure included outdated information on other statutory organisations that can be contacted. This meant people may not know who to contact should their complaints not be satisfactorily resolved by the organisation.

Staffing rotas had some flexibility for people to participate in community based activities. For example, two staff were on duty once a week, for people to participate in separate activities. One person said they received the attention they needed from the staff.

Risk management systems ensured where risks were identified, action was taken to reduce the level of risk. Accidents and incidents were analysed to ensure the actions in place reduced any repeat occurrences of the accident.

People said they felt safe at the home and the staff knew the signs of abuse and the actions to take if they suspected abuse.

The training provided ensured the staff had the necessary skills and insight to meet people’s needs. Systems that monitored staff performance and progression such as one to one, team meetings and appraisals were in place to support staff with their roles and responsibilities.

People were able to make day to day decisions. Where staff had  concerns about people’s understanding of specific decisions, their capacity to make these decisions was assessed. Members of staff showed a good understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

People said they liked the staff and we saw people smile as staff approached them. We saw staff use a gentle approach to support one person and humour with another person. One person said they were able to pursue their hobbies and interest and volunteered outside the home.

People were supported with their ongoing health and ensured their advice was actioned to improve people’s health. For example, changing to a gluten free diet.

Support plans that met people’s current needs were in place. One person said they were involved in the planning of their care. Support plans were based on the things that were important to them and how people liked their care and treatment to be delivered.

A system to gain people’s views was in place. House meetings, questionnaires were  used to gain feedback. Positive feedback was received from the questionnaires on the standards of care at the home.

Quality assurance arrangements in place ensured people's safety and well-being. Systems and processes were used to assess, monitor and improve the quality, safety and welfare of people. There were effective systems of auditing which ensured people received appropriate care and treatment. The system of audits included care plans and medicine management.

We have made a recommendation about the management of some medicines.