Archived: Disabilities Trust - 22 Woodlands Road

Updated 29 September 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 17 August 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the location was a small care home for adults who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in. The inspection was carried out 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 looked at notifications received from the provider. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. Due to the complex nature of the communication difficulties of people in the service, we observed care practice throughout the day and also spoke with all of their relatives following the inspection. We spoke with the registered manager, assistant manager, and three staff.

We looked at two people's care records, three staff files and other records showing how the home was managed. We contacted social and health care professionals for feedback about the service.

Updated 29 September 2017

The inspection took place on 17 August 2017 and was announced. Disabilities Trust - 22 Woodlands Road provides accommodation with personal care for up to three people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were three people living there.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

We last inspected the service in June 2016 and found that medicines were not always safely managed. We also found that the systems in place to monitor the quality of the service had not been analysed to identify areas for improvement. At this inspection we found improvements had been made. People’s medicines were managed safely and there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to highlight where action was needed.

Relatives said they were confident that the service was safe. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to keep people safe. Risks to people's safety were appropriately assessed and managed.

Staff understood how to identify any safeguarding concerns and knew the process of reporting such concerns. Medicines were administered, recorded and stored in line with current guidelines.

Staff had been recruited safely to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to keep people safe.

The registered manager was knowledgeable about The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The MCA Code of Practice was followed when people were not able to make important decisions themselves. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibility to ensure people's rights were protected.

Records showed that staff received the training they needed to keep people safe. The manager had taken action to ensure that training was kept up-to-date and future training was planned.

Staff told us they felt supported by the management and received supervision and appraisals, which helped to identify their training and development needs.

People had regular access to healthcare professionals. People’s individual preferences regarding food were always taken into account and they were supported to eat a healthy diet.

We observed that people had positive relationships with staff and were treated in a caring and respectful manner. Staff delivered their support in a calm, relaxed and considerate manner. People and their relatives were actively encouraged to participate in the planning of people’s care. Staff were empathic when dealing with people's privacy and dignity.

We found the service was extremely responsive in promoting a person-centred lifestyle. Optimising communication was seen as key to making a difference to people’s quality of life. People were supported by staff that were proactive in finding imaginative ways to help achieve their goals. Care plans were person-centred and ensured the care and support suited people’s needs and expectations. People’s own preferences were reflected in the support they received.

The management encouraged, appreciated and acted on people's and relatives’ opinions on the service. Such information was used to implement changes and enhance the functioning of the service. People and staff had confidence in the manager as their leader and were complimentary about the positive culture within the service. There were systems and processes in place to help monitor the quality of the care people received.