We carried out a review of the data available to us about University Care on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about University Care, you can give feedback on this service.
The home is situated in a residential part of Nottingham with good links to community facilities and transport. The service has been developed 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
People felt safe and there were enough staff to provide support to meet their needs. People were protected from the risk of harm and staff understood how to recognise potential abuse and how to act to keep people safe. People received their prescribed medicines safely and they understood why they needed these. Staff had been suitably recruited to ensure they were able to work with people.
People made decisions about how they wanted to be supported and they could decide what to do and how to spend their time. 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. Where people lacked capacity, they were helped to make decisions. Where their liberty was restricted, this had been identified and action taken to ensure this was lawful. They received support to stay well and had access to health care services. Staff had training and professional development that they required to work effectively in their roles.
People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent. People were responsible for shopping and cooking the food they wanted to eat and supported to develop living skills.
People had developed positive relationships with the staff. Staff helped people to make choices about their care and their views were respected. People were involved in the planning and review of their care and family members and friends continued to play an important role. Where people had any concerns, they were able to make a complaint, and this was responded to.
Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. People and staff were encouraged to raise any views about the service on how improvements could be made. The registered manager worked in partnership with other professionals to ensure people received they care they wanted. They promoted an open culture which put people at the heart of the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (6 July 2017).
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.
People continued to receive safe care and processes were in place to reduce the risk of people experiencing avoidable harm. Safe staff recruitment processes were in place and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Safe medicine management processes were in place and people received their prescribed medicines safely.
The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were used when decisions were made for people who lacked mental capacity to make specific decisions themselves. There were a small number of examples where a MCA assessment may be needed. People were supported to lead a healthy lifestyle with encouragement to maintain a balanced diet. Staff were well trained, received regular supervision of their work and felt supported by the registered manager to develop their roles. People’s day to day health needs were met.
People and staff had developed positive relationships. Staff treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. There was a positive and friendly atmosphere within the home. People’s independence was encouraged. People’s care records were detailed and personalised which enabled staff to support people in line with their personal preferences. People were provided with an ‘easy read’ complaints process that supported people living with a learning disability. Effective systems were in place to manage any complaints that the provider may receive.
The service continued to be well-led. The registered manager was well liked by all and they carried out their role enthusiastically and professionally. There was a positive ethos and an open culture at the home resulting in an enjoyable working environment for staff, and a calm and friendly atmosphere for people living there. People and staff were encouraged to contribute to the development of the service. Effective auditing processes were in place.
This inspection took place on 2 September 2015 and was unannounced. University Care provides accommodation and personal care for up to three people with a learning disability. On the day of our inspection two people were using the service.
The service had 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.
People were safe living at the care home and staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from the risk of abuse. Action was taken following any incidents to try and reduce the risks of incidents happening again. People received their medicines as prescribed and they were safely stored.
There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and provide support in a timely manner. Effective recruitment procedures were operated to ensure staff were safe to work with vulnerable adults.
Staff were provided with the knowledge and skills needed to care for people effectively and staff felt supported by the registered manager. People received support from healthcare professionals when needed and staff followed the guidance provided. People had access to sufficient quantities of food and drink and were able to choose the food they wanted.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found this legislation was being used correctly to protect people who were not able to make their own decisions about the care they received. We also found staff were aware of the principles within the MCA and how this might affect the care they provided to people.
Positive and caring relationships had been developed between people and staff. Staff understood the different ways people preferred to communicate and ensured people’s views were taken into account when making decisions about their care. People made many day to day choices independently. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and staff ensured their privacy was respected.
People were provided with support that was responsive to their changing needs and personal preferences. There was a wide range of activities available which people enjoyed taking part in. A clear complaints procedure was in place although no complaints had been received because the registered manager dealt with any issues as they arose.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and these were well utilised, resulting in improvements being made. The registered manager led by example and staff felt able to speak with them about any concerns. There was an open and honest culture in the home.