Background to this inspection
Updated
13 September 2016
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 inspection took place on 29 July 2016 which was unannounced and on 1 August 2016, which was announced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and one expert by experience who spoke with people to get their views about the service they received. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of caring for people with learning disabilities.
We looked at the information we held about the service, which included ‘notifications’. Notifications are changes, events or incidents that the provider must tell us about.
We contacted commissioners for social care, responsible for funding some of the people who used the service and asked them for their views about the agency. No concerns were expressed about the current provision of personal care to people using the service. We also spoke with a social worker of one person living in the service. Concerns were expressed about whether the person had enough structured opportunities to fulfil their potential and prevent behaviour that challenged the service.
Before the site visit, we asked the provider to complete 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 what improvements they plan to make. The PIR was returned to us and set out how it aimed to provide quality care to the people living in the home.
During the inspection we spoke with six people who used the service, three relatives, two community nurses, the registered manager and three care workers.
We also looked in detail at the care and support provided to three people who used the service, including their care records, audits on the running of the service, staff training, staff recruitment records and medicine administration records.
Updated
13 September 2016
The inspection visit took place on 29 July and 1 August 2016. The visit was unannounced.
155 Upperton Road is a residential home which provides care to people with learning difficulties. It is registered to provide care for up to eight people. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living at the home.
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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People using the service we spoke with said they thought the home was safe, although this view was not shared by one relative and a social worker for one person living in the home. Staffing levels were not always sufficient to ensure people's safety.
Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and understood their responsibilities in this area.
People's risk assessments provided staff with information on how to support people safely.
People using the service told us they thought their medicines were given safely and on time.
Staff were subject to character checks to ensure they were appropriate to work with the people who used the service.
Staff had been trained to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs.
Staff understood their main responsibility under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to allow, as much as possible, people to have an effective choice about how they lived their lives.
People had plenty to eat and drink and everyone told us they liked the food served.
People's health care needs had been protected by referrals to health care professionals when necessary.
People told us they liked the staff and got on well with them. We saw many examples of staff working with people in a friendly and caring way, although we witnessed one situation where this was not the case and one relative had a previous concern about the attitude of one staff member.
People and their representatives were involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
Care plans were individual to the people using the service and covered their health and social care needs.
Activities were organised to provide stimulation for people and they took part in activities in the community if they chose.
People told us they would tell staff if they had any concerns and were confident these would be followed up.
People, staff and most relatives we spoke with were satisfied with how the home was run by the registered manager. One relative and one social worker had concerns about the provision of care to one person.
Management carried out audits and checks to ensure the home was running properly to meet people's needs, though not all essential issues had been audited.