Lowry House

Updated 4 February 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

Service and service type

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

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. We contacted commissioners of the service and Healthwatch to find out what information they held about the service. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. This information helps support our inspections.

During the inspection

We visited and spoke with five people who used the service and four relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with 14 members of staff including the registered manager, deputy manager, unit manager, support workers and members of the multi-disciplinary team including the doctor, speech and language therapist, occupational therapist and assistant psychologist.

We reviewed a range of records. This included two people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed. We visited people on four units and looked at the environment.

After the inspection

We contacted four family members to discuss their views of the service.

Updated 4 February 2020

About the service

Lowry House is a residential care home providing personal care to 12 people living with a learning disability. The service can support up to 12 people. There were six units and people lived either in small groups or independently depending upon their needs. All shared units had communal areas which included a kitchen and dining area.

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.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 12 people. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design to provide separate flats where people lived independently or in small groups. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People received exceptional person-centred care which was specifically designed to be reflective of their choices and preferences. People were at the heart of all decisions about their care and support. People, family and staff were fully involved in developing care plans and there were regular reviews. Staff had a clear understanding of the importance of providing people with opportunities to develop and maintain friendships and relationships and be part of the wider community. People were actively supported to maintain family relationships including visits to the family home, and attend a range of activities that were fun and enjoyable to the individual.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence. The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent. Staff showed a passion and commitment to helping people achieve their goals and realise their aspirations. Staff had a ‘can do’ positive approach to risk taking. They meticulously planned and liaised with families and health professionals to overcome barriers. We saw numerous examples of how people had been supported to identify lifelong aspirations. The service had taken a structure step by step approach to enable people to move at their own pace to achieve these. Families and staff told us about how significantly positive an impact this had to people’s lives and given them meaningful, fulfilling and rewarding opportunities in their life that they never thought would be possible. This included people working towards independence and employment.

People felt safe and were supported to take part in a range of positive activities in the community. Systems were in place to ensure that the environment, equipment and utilities were maintained and safe for use. Medicines were safely stored and managed. People were supported to self-medicate when possible and guidance was provided for people who had medicines they only needed occasionally, such as medicine to manage pain. The service followed systems to ensure staff were safely recruited and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. If things went wrong, such as incidents, these were investigated, and action taken to learn lessons and prevent future risks.

People were supported to access healthcare services as needed and staff were able to recognise when people had additional support needs. There were adaptations in place throughout the service to meet people’s needs and promote independence. People’s rooms were decorated to reflect their interests and preferences. Staff received a full induction when they began working at the service and told us they had all the training and support they needed to do their job.

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; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Assessments of people’s capacity was in place and the right people were involved in best interest decision making which included independent advocates.

Staff were kind and caring and people were supported to express their preferences and identity. Choice was promoted, and people were involved in decision making. Staff respected people’s privacy and were committed to providing good quality compassionate care.

People, relatives and staff were positive about the registered manager and the management team. The service worked closely with others to achieve positive outcomes and people and families were encouraged to provide feedback through meetings and surveys to improve service delivery. Staff were clear on their roles and duties, and committed to reflective learning and contributed to the improvement of care in 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 (published 15 June 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

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.