Archived: Belfry Gardens

The inspection of Belfry Gardens took place on 4 November 2014 and was unannounced. This meant that the provider did not know when we were inspecting the service. At the last inspection in August 2013 we found that there were no breaches of the legal requirements in the areas we looked at.

Belfry Gardens provides accommodation and personal care for up to two people with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorders.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of this inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

During our inspection we spoke with four staff and both of the people who used the service. We also looked at people’s care plans to help us understand their care and support needs.

Staff we spoke with were clear about how to recognise and report any suspicions of abuse and the training records we looked at confirmed that all staff had received safeguarding adults training.

Care records contained risk assessments which were specific to the care needs of the individuals who lived at Belfry Gardens.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We saw information that best interest meetings had taken place where people lacked capacity to make decisions for themselves.

From the two care plans we looked at we saw that people had their health needs met. Staff we spoke with and our observations throughout the day, showed that staff were knowledgeable of how to meet people’s needs and how people who used the service preferred to be supported.

Staff were seen to treat people with respect and preserve their dignity at all times. We saw staff knocking on people’s doors and waiting for an answer before they entered, or saying who they were as they entered the room.

There was a complaints procedure in place, although no formal complaints had been received since our last inspection in August 2013.

Records showed that appropriate pre-employment checks had been carried out to ensure that only suitable staff were employed to work with vulnerable adults.

We saw that some quality monitoring was taking place however this was predominantly informal by way of visual checks and did not cover all aspects of the service. We spoke with the registered manager about this on the day of our inspection. They told us that a quarterly audit, covering all aspects of the service, was due to be introduced within the next few weeks. Quality was also measured by involving people who used the service, their relatives, and health care professionals.