Archived: Bailiffgate

Updated 7 November 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 19 October 2018 and was unannounced.

It was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection, we had received a completed Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the PIR and other information we held about the service as part of our inspection. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send CQC within required timescales. We also contacted commissioners from the Local Authorities who contracted people’s care and two professionals who provided specialist advice and support to some people who used the service.

During this inspection the registered manager was not available as they were on holiday. We carried out general observations. We spoke with five people who lived at Bailiffgate, the operations support manager, one senior support worker, the activities co-ordinator, one domestic and three support workers. We reviewed a range of records about people's care and how the service was managed. We looked at care records for three people, three people’s medicines records, staffing rosters, staff meeting minutes, meeting minutes for people who used the service, maintenance contracts and quality assurance audits the registered manager had completed. After the inspection we carried out telephone interviews with three relatives.

Updated 7 November 2018

Bailiffgate is a care home that provides accommodation and personal care for a maximum of 11 people with a learning impairment. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Bailiffgate accommodated eight people at the time of the inspection. The service operates from one large house.

Plans were in place for the care service to adapt and to be developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support guidance. The model of care proposed from 2015 and 2016 guidance that people with learning disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorder which proposed smaller community based housing. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At our last inspection in September 2016 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 ongoing 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.

.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

The atmosphere was welcoming and the building was well-maintained with a good standard of hygiene. A professional commented, "The manager and team are welcoming and professional and enable effective assessment and support planning with people."

Staff were kind and caring and had developed good relationships with people using the service. People were comfortable in the presence of staff. Relatives confirmed the staff were caring and looked after people very well.

People told us they were safe and were well cared for. Several people commented, "I love living here." Staff knew about safeguarding vulnerable adults procedures. There were enough staff available to provide individual care and support to each person. Staff upheld people's human rights and treated everyone with great respect and dignity.

Staff were well supported due to regular supervision, annual appraisals and a robust induction programme, which developed their understanding of people and their routines. Staff also received a wide range of specialised training to ensure they could support people safely and carry out their roles effectively.

Staff were skilled and knowledgeable and they were committed to making a positive difference to each person. There was clear evidence of collaborative working and excellent communication with other professionals in order to help people progress and become more independent.

Risk assessments were in place and they accurately identified current risks to the person as well as ways for staff to minimise or appropriately manage those risks. Staff knew the needs of the people they supported to provide individual care and records reflected the care provided. Arrangements for managing people’s medicines were safe.

Staff were well supported by the registered manager and senior management team. The registered manager had a clear vision for the service and its development. They were enthusiastic and believed strongly in the ethos.

People had food and drink to meet their needs. They were provided with opportunities to follow their interests and hobbies and they were introduced to new activities. They were all supported to contribute and to be part of the local community.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Information was accessible and made available in a format that helped people to understand.

There was regular consultation with people. All people were kept involved and encouraged to make decisions, whatever the level of need. They were involved in regular meetings about their care and the running of the home. Menus were planned with input from people, based on their personal preferences and choices.

Robust auditing and governance systems were in place to check the quality of care and to keep people safe. People were encouraged and supported to give their views about the service.

People said they knew how to complain. They told us they would feel confident to speak to staff about any concerns if they needed to. People had access to an advocate if required.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.