Archived: Alderwood 2 - Ambleside

Updated 25 August 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.’

This comprehensive inspection took place on the 10 July 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours' notice of the inspection as care is provided in the community and we needed to ensure that staff were available to support the inspection.

The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We received the completed document prior to our visit and reviewed the content to help focus our planning and determine the areas we needed to look at during our inspection.

We reviewed the information we held about the service, including information sent to us by other agencies, such as Healthwatch; an independent consumer champion for people who use health and social care services. We also contacted commissioners and asked them for their views about the service. Commissioners are people who work to find appropriate care and support services for people.

During the inspection, we spoke with one person who used the service. We also spoke with five members of staff, including support workers, human resources staff, the deputy manager and head of behaviour. The registered manager was on annual leave at the time of the inspection, but we spoke with them following the inspection visit and they provided further information to support the inspection. We also spoke with a healthcare professional involved in the care and support of one person. We looked at records relating to the personal care and support of one person using the service and their medicines records. We also looked at three staff recruitment records and other information related to the management oversight and governance of the service. This included quality assurance audits, staff training and supervision information, staffing rotas and the arrangements for managing complaints.

Updated 25 August 2018

This inspection took place on 10 July 2018 and was announced.

This was the first comprehensive inspection of the service since it was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

The service provides care and support to people living in ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. People using the service lived in a single ‘house in multi-occupation’ that could be shared by four people. Houses in multiple occupation are properties where at least three people in more than one household share toilet, bathroom or kitchen facilities.

Not everyone using Alderwood 2 - Ambleside receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided.

At the time of our inspection, there was one person in receipt of personal care support. The service provides supported living to people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health needs.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 supported in a safe way. Staff had an understanding of abuse and the safeguarding procedures that should be followed to report abuse. All the staff we spoke with were confident that any concerns they raised would be followed up appropriately by senior staff. People had risk assessments in place to cover any risks that were present within their lives, but also enabled them to be as independent as possible.

There were safe systems in place for the administration of medicines and people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff supported people in a way which prevented the spread of infection. Staff used the appropriate personal protective equipment to perform their roles safely.

The staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure only suitable staff worked at the service. References and security checks were carried out as required. Staffing levels were suitable to meet people's needs, and rotas showed that staffing was consistent.

Staff attended induction training where they completed mandatory training courses and were able to shadow more experienced staff. Staff told us that they were able to update their mandatory training with refresher courses and encouraged to attend courses specifically designed around the needs of the people they were supporting. Staff were well supported by the registered manager, senior team and provider, and had one to one supervisions.

People were able to choose the food and drink they wanted and staff supported people with this. Staff supported people to access health appointments when necessary. Health professionals were involved with people's care as and when required.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the polices and systems in the service supported this practice. People were encouraged to make decisions about their care, daily routines and preferences. Staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and there was documentation to support this.

People were involved in their own care planning as much as they could be, and were able to contribute to the way in which they were supported. Care planning was personalised and considered people's likes and dislikes, so that staff understood their needs fully. People were in control of their care and listened to by staff.

Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know them and their specific needs and wishes. People told us they were happy with the way that staff spoke to them, and they provided their care in a respectful and dignified manner.

The service had a complaints procedure in place. This ensured people and their relatives were able to provide feedback about their care and to help the service make improvements where required.

Quality monitoring systems and processes were in place and comprehensive audits were taking place within the service to identify where improvements could be made.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure quality of care across all levels. Communication was open and honest, and improvements were highlighted and worked upon as required.