Archived: Care Management Group - 4 Vallance Gardens

Updated 21 December 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

Care Management Group – 4 Vallance Gardens is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave a short period notice of the inspection because people living at the service had recently moved in. The service is also small, and people are often out, and we wanted to be sure there would be people at home to speak with us.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with two people who used the service about their experience of the care provided, they were able to answer closed questions with yes or no responses. We spoke with five members of staff including the regional manager, registered manager, deputy manager and care staff. We spent time with people and used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We reviewed a range of records. This included two people’s care records and medication records. We looked at three staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We spoke with five relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with two professionals who regularly visit the service.

Updated 21 December 2019

About the service

Care Management Group – 4 Vallance Gardens is a residential care home providing personal care for up to seven people living with a learning disability, aged between 18 and 30. At the time of the inspection, there were four people using the service. People lived in one adapted building.

The service has been redeveloped 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 experience of using this service and what we found

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

People felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, signs of abuse and how to report any concerns. When things went wrong, staff reflected on the incident and learnt lessons. Changes were made when necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Risks to people’s safety and well-being were identified and assessed. People received their prescribed medicines safely from staff who were trained and assessed as competent to support them. Infection control was well managed.

There were enough staff available to support people. Recruitment continued as more people moved into the service. Staff new to the service were supported with induction. Staff were supported with ongoing training and supervision.

People’s needs had been comprehensively assessed before they moved into the service, with the involvement of relatives, previous support services and professionals. People’s move into the service had been well planned, with regular opportunities for staff and people to meet, both at the service, at family homes and in other support environments. One person’s relative told us, “I would say throughout the whole onboarding process we have been delighted with everything that we have seen and been involved with, their standards of care and attention to detail.”

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. People were supported to access healthcare support as needed, and staff worked in partnership with health and social care professionals.

People were treated with kindness, care and compassion. People’s relatives were pleased with the service provided. One relative said, “It’s fantastic, absolutely brilliant. I couldn’t ask for a better place.” People were encouraged to express their views and make choices about their care and support. People’s privacy was respected, and their dignity promoted. People were supported and encouraged to be independent and staff sought to develop and increase people’s independence.

People received personalised care. Staff knew people well and responded to their wishes and needs. People were encouraged to choose their own key workers, activities and ways to spend their time. Key workers are designated members of staff that support the person with managing support needs, achieving goals and updating documentation. People’s communication was well understood by the staff team, and we saw communication aids and assistive technology in use to support people to communicate.

People and their relatives knew how to complain and were confident to do so. There had not been any complaints since the service had been redeveloped. People, their relatives and staff were involved in the ongoing development of the service. Quality assurance processes, such as audits, were used to identify areas for continuous improvement.

There was a positive and person-centred culture, promoted by the registered manager. People and their relatives spoke highly of the registered manager and her dedication to the people and service. Staff told us they were well supported. The registered manager understood their regulatory responsibilities.

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

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was Requires Improvement (published 25 November 2016).

The provider told us after the last inspection what they would do and by when to improve. The service then went dormant. A location can go dormant on the register when it is no longer providing regulated activity. In this instance, the service had closed whist the building was renovated.

At this inspection, there had been significant change. The registered manager, staff and people living at the service were all new. We found the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

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.