Reiver House

Updated 25 September 2018

We carried out this comprehensive 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.

Following the inspection visit we contacted the commissioning departments of three local authorities that have placed people at Reiver House. In addition we contacted a number of other professionals that access the home to provide a health or social service. This helped us to gain a balanced overview of what people experienced accessing the home.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held on the service. This included notifications we had received from the registered provider, about incidents that affected the health, safety and welfare of people who lived at the home and previous inspection reports. We also checked to see if any information concerning the care and welfare of people living at the home had been received.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. 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. We used a planning tool to collate all this evidence and information prior to inspecting the home.

The inspection visit took place on 23 August 2018 and was unannounced.

The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

During the time of inspection there were three people who lived at Reiver House. We were not able to speak to the people however we did observe the care and interaction between the people and the staff. We also spoke to three staff members, the previous registered manager, the new manager and the deputy manager.

We closely examined the care records of the three people who lived at the home. This process is called pathway tracking and enables us to judge how well the home understands and plans to meet people's care needs and manage any risks to people's health and wellbeing.

We reviewed a variety of records, including policies and procedures, safety and quality audits, three staff personnel and training files, records of accidents, complaints records, various service certificates and medicine administration records.

We observed care and support in communal areas and had a walk around the home. This enabled us to determine if people received the care and support they needed in an appropriate environment.

Updated 25 September 2018

Reiver House is a residential care home for up to four adults with autism and severe learning difficulties, often accompanied by complex needs. The accommodation is on two levels and there is access to a garden area and outside space.

Reiver House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. 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.”

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on going monitoring, that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection on 12 February 2015.

The service does not currently have a registered manager. 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. An application has been received from the newly appointed manager and is currently being processed by the Care Quality Commission, Registration Team.

We found systems and processes were in place to keep people safe. Staff understood their responsibilities and were able to explain the measures they took for safeguarding people they cared for. Any foreseeable risks to a persons safety and health were fully assessed and measures put into place that minimised the potential risk. The measures supported people to stay safe, whilst not unnecessarily restricting their freedom. Incidents and accidents were reported and the management team reviewed all incidents and put measures in place to reduce to reduce the risk of similar incidents happening again.

Medicines were managed effectively and safely. The premises and environment was in need of some refurbishment and chipped paint and damaged wall covering was noticeable. The manager informed us that redecoration was planned and quotes for the work to be carried out had already been obtained. Infection prevention and control was effectively managed.

Staff received appropriate training for their role and they were supported to further develop their knowledge and skills.

People's needs were assessed and care was delivered in line with national guidance. Care plans contained detailed information about each person's individual support and their preferences. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. When people were unable to make decisions about their care and support, the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty and Mental Capacity Act (2005) were followed.

All the people currently living at Reiver House are unable to express themselves verbally, however they clearly felt comfortable with the staff and appeared to be relaxed and happy. From speaking and watching the staff interaction with the people it was evident that caring relationships had developed with people. We saw people were treated with kindness and respect. People felt able to express themselves in a safe and supportive environment.

People living at Reiver House had complex needs and one to one or two to one support was provided to ensure the safety of the people and the staff. Staff had a detailed knowledge of the people they cared for and were able to recognise subtle cues from people that enabled them to respond effectively to their needs, wishes and potential risk. People led full and active lives. They engaged in a wide range of activities based on their personal choices. People were treated equally, without discrimination and information was presented to them in a way they could understand.

We saw there was a stable staff group that had been employed at the service for some time and they spoke highly of the support and leadership they received from the previous registered manager and the newly appointed manager. Staff were able to express their views and opinions and we saw evidence that the service was run in such a way that the people living there could maximise their potential and live a full and meaningful life.