The service provided care to 15 people living with a learning disability. Nine people lived in single room accommodation in the main building. A further six people were accommodated in two double and two single occupancy self-contained flats with kitchen, lounge and bathroom. The main building was well provided with a lounge, dining room, conservatory, toilets, shower rooms and bathrooms. People from both buildings had access to gardens. The service had a mini bus which was regularly used to take people on outings to the cinema, the seaside and on shopping trips.
At lunchtime we undertook a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) in the main building. SOFI helps us to understand people's perceptions of the care and treatment they receive when they are unable to tell us themselves. We have used this to find out about the lunchtime experience of people living with a learning disability.
We considered the findings of our inspection to answer questions we always ask: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with people using the service the staff supporting them. We also looked at three care records. We were unable to speak with health and social care professionals or family and friends as there were no visitors to the home on the day of our inspection. .
If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) MCA and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA states that every adult has the right to make their own decisions about their care and treatment and must be assumed to have capacity to make them unless it is proved otherwise. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are part of the MCA. DoLS supports people in care homes and hospitals to be looked after in a way that does not unlawfully restrict their right to freedom.
The home had policies and procedures in relation to safeguarding vulnerable adults and whistle blowing. We spoke with care staff who understood what was meant by abuse and knew how to report their concerns.
We saw the home had a programme of regular audit and risk assessments to ensure people were cared for in a safe environment.
The service was safe, clean and hygienic. We saw regular checks were made on the cleanliness of the building. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk. We observed regular maintenance was carried out, for example on electrical and fire equipment
Is the service effective?
Our observations found that members of staff knew people's individual health and wellbeing needs. There was a process in place to ensure staff were aware of people's changing needs and what to do if a person became unwell. Staff told us that they shared information at handover between each shift and updated peoples care records at least twice a day.
We found staff attended training courses to meet the individual needs of people in their care such as managing restraint and challenging behaviours.
Is the service caring?
We observed staff speak with people in a kind and caring way and give them time to answer questions. We saw no one was rushed and staff helped people to do things in their own time. We saw all staff had a very good rapport with people and there was a lot of chat and laughter.
We observed lunchtime and saw people were treated as individuals and staff promoted and encouraged people to be independent. We saw when staff praised a person for their achievements they treated them as equals.
The people who were able to communicate with us told us they well were cared for.
Is the service responsive?
We saw care was responsive to people's individual needs. We saw one person who wanted to keep fit was supported to join a local gym.
We saw when care workers raised concerns about people's health and social care needs, that the provider had contacted appropriate health and social care professionals. The individual care files identified this and a record of each referral, professional visit and outcome were recorded.
We saw the provider had contingency plans in place in event of an emergency situation.
Is the service well led?
We saw people were well supported by the staff on duty. Several people were supported by one to one care for up to 12 hours a day.
All the staff we spoke with told us the manager was approachable and supported them with professional and personnel problems. One staff member said, 'XX is very approachable for all sorts of things. This is a good place to work.'