Background to this inspection
Updated
11 January 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 checked 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 inspection took place on 7 November 2017 and was unannounced.
The inspection was carried out by two inspectors and a registered Interpreter for British Sign Language/English.
Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. For example, information shared by members of the public and healthcare professionals and statutory notifications. Statutory notifications are information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law. We used this information to plan the inspection.
During the inspection we spoke with three people using the service, three support workers, two interpreters and the registered manager. We reviewed the care plans for two people, three staff files, two medicines records, the complaints file, health and safety file and other records relating to the management of the service.
After the inspection we contacted three healthcare professionals involved with people who use the service and spoke with one person’s relative to gather their views of the service.
Updated
11 January 2018
SignHealth Longley Road is a residential care home based in Tooting, south west London. It provides support within an independent living environment for up to six deaf people with mental health needs. The service is situated over three floors and people have their own private areas with a kitchen, bathroom and lounge area in addition to a bedroom.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection the service remained Good.
People’s safety was at the heart of the service. People continued to remain safe as the service developed robust risk management plans that identified known risks and gave staff clear guidance about how to mitigate those risks. Risk management plans were reviewed regularly to reflect people’s changing needs. Staff had sufficient knowledge of managing behaviours others may find challenging, in order to keep people safe.
The service had an embedded culture that protected them from the risk of harm and abuse. Staff continued to received safeguarding training and were able to demonstrate significant understanding of what action they would take, should they suspect abuse had taken place. Staff were aware of the providers ‘whistleblowing’ policy.
Incidents and accidents were regularly reviewed to ensure lessons were learnt and the risk of repeat incidents were minimised.
The service ensured specialist equipment was used to keep people and staff safe. Specialist equipment was specific to the people using the service. Adaptions to the environment were undertaken and regularly reviewed to ensure they functioned as intended.
People continued to be supported by sufficient numbers of qualified and suitable staff to effectively and safely meet their individual needs. The service had exceeded the expectations of providing staff that could identify with people’s communication needs and the impact their conditions had on them.
People’s medicines were managed in line with good practice. Staff’s knowledge of medicines management was robust and records confirmed people received their medicines as prescribed. People were encouraged to self-administer their own medicines with support from staff to encourage further independence.
Staff had sufficient understanding of the importance of following good practice in line with infection control management. Records indicated the service monitored and implemented systems in order to reduce the risk of infection.
The embedded culture of the service ensured people continued to be supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and to be supported in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff had a comprehensive understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
People received effective care and support from staff that had undergone regular training both mandatory and person specific. Staff could request additional training should they deem it necessary.
Staff continued to receive regular supervisions and annual appraisals to ensure they reflected on their working practices. Records of staff supervisions were personalised and gave staff clear guidance on how to enhance their skills and the delivery of care.
People were encouraged to maintain healthy lives and have access to sufficient food and drink that met their dietary needs and preferences. People continued to receive support and guidance on how to make healthy choices and had access to healthcare professionals to monitor their health and wellbeing.
The service had an embedded culture of supporting people in a person centred way that was tailored to their individual needs and preferences. People were supported to make decisions about the care they received. The service had robust systems in place that encouraged and empowered people’s differences and treated people equally. Staff treated people with the upmost compassion, respect and maintained their privacy and dignity.
People and their relatives were encouraged to make decisions about the care they received and this was clearly documented. Care plans were regularly reviewed and were in pictorial format, ensuring people could understand and develop their contents.
People knew how to raise a concern or complaint. The service had a complaints procedure in place and the registered manager was aware of the importance of reaching positive outcomes from complaints received.
The service encouraged and empowered people to become valued members of their community and were encouraged to participate in activities that met their social needs.
The registered manager actively encouraged partnership working from other healthcare professionals in order to drive improvements. People’s views were regularly sought and actions were taken to address any concerns that arose in a timely manner.