United Response - 4 Highgate Park

Updated 2 March 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was planned to check whether the provider was 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.

The inspection site visits took place on 14 December 2017 and 3 January 2018 and were announced. We gave 48 hours’ notice of our inspection because we needed to make sure someone would be in the location when we visited. The inspection team was made up of two inspectors.

Before our inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service, which included information shared with the CQC and notifications sent to us since our last inspection. Notifications are when providers send us information about certain changes, events or incidents that occur and which affect their service or the people who use it.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return to plan our inspection. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection, we spoke with two people who used the service and two people’s carers. ‘Carer’ is a term which refers to a relative or friend who provides unpaid support to a person living with a disability. We spoke with three members of staff, the area manager and a manager from a different United Response service who provided support to the team in the absence of their registered manager. The registered manager was in post but unavailable during our inspection.

We had a tour of the service including communal areas and, with permission, looked in people’s bedrooms. We observed interactions between staff and people who used the service including at lunchtime and during activities. We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who cannot talk with us.

We reviewed three people’s care plans and risk assessments. We looked at three staff files which included information relating to recruitment, training, supervision and appraisals. We also viewed medication administration records, meeting minutes, audits and other records relating to the running of the service.

Updated 2 March 2018

United Response - 4 Highgate Park is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service provides accommodation for up to four adults in one adapted building. The service does not provide nursing care, but specialises in supporting people who may be living with a learning disability or physical disability.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The inspection took place on 14 December 2017 and 3 January 2018. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of our inspection because we needed to make sure someone would be in the location when we visited. On the first day of our inspection, there were three people living at the service and four on the second day.

At the last inspection in October 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection, we found the service remained ‘Good’.

During our inspection, people who used the service told us they felt safe. The provider had safeguarding policies and procedures in place and staff understood their responsibility to safeguard the people they supported. We found the environment was clean and necessary health and safety checks were completed.

We found medicines were administered safely.

Staff ensured that people had enough to eat and drink and people had choice about their diet. We observed staff had established a rapport with the people they supported and treated people with dignity and respect. Staff received supervisions and appraisals and described feeling well supported by the registered manager. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

We found care records were person-centred and contained detailed information about people’s lives. People’s support was regularly reviewed and records were updated when there had been a change in their needs.

We received very positive feedback, without exception, about the registered manager. The registered manager considered ways to adapt the environment and improve the support provided to people. The registered manager and provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.