Royal Mencap Society - 62 Wright Street

Updated 3 May 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 inspection took place on 15 February 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector. At the time of the inspection there were three people living at the home.

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 which improvements they plan to make. We checked the information we held about the service and the service provider. This included statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about events which the service is required to send us by law. We used this information to decide which areas to focus on during our inspection.

We contacted the local Healthwatch organisation and the Local Authority Commissioning team to obtain their views about the provider. No concerns were raised about the service provided at the home.

We were unable to speak with any of the people who used the service, due to the nature of their disability. However, we spoke with two relatives and five members of staff including the registered manager and the assistant service manager. We also contacted four health and social care professionals after the inspection visit. These parties had no concerns to share about the service.

We used a short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who were unable to communicate their view with us.

We looked around all areas of the home and looked at food provision.

We looked at the care records and medication administration records of all people living at the home. We also looked at the recruitment, training and supervision administration records for three members of staff, minutes of meetings and a variety of other records related to the management of the service.

Updated 3 May 2018

62 Wright Street is a domestic property located close to Horwich town centre and has good access to local shops and public transport. It is part of a larger organisation, The Royal Mencap Society. The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to four people with a learning disability / autistic spectrum disorder. On the day of the inspection three people were living at the home.

The service had a registered manager. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

This was an unannounced inspection which was carried out on the 15 February 2018.

At our previous inspection on 18 November 2015 we found that people were receiving high quality care which was responsive to people's individual needs. At this inspection, we found that these standards had been maintained and improved further. People received an outstanding level of care. Skilled and extremely caring staff supported people in an exceptionally person centred way. Staff embraced people's diversity and this was reflected in the care plans we saw.

The registered manager was based at 62 Wright Street five days per week. There was an assistant service manager on site five days per week who worked flexibly in response to the needs of the service. There was a manager available by telephone at all times.

We observed excellent relationships between people and observed the senior management team and staff interacting with people in a caring, good humoured and friendly manner. Management and staff demonstrated exceptional insight and understanding of people's personal preferences and needs. People appeared happy and relaxed and we overheard much laughter and observed meaningful interactions during our visit.

People’s confidence and ability to be as independent as possible had grown since living at 62 Wright Street. Risks were managed effectively and people clearly felt safe meeting new challenges with the support of the staff. There were enough staff on duty so that they could take part in the activities they wished and be supported in meeting their individual needs. People had access to activities that were important and relevant to them, both inside and outside their home. They were protected from social isolation because of the exceptional support and exhaustive range of opportunities offered by staff.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from harm. They had their medicines administered safely. Staff had a good understanding about the signs of abuse and were aware of what to do if they suspected abuse was taking place. People's needs were assessed before and when they moved into the home and on an ongoing basis to reflect changes in their needs. Clear and well thought out arrangements were in place for people moving into the service which helped to significantly reduce possible anxiety about this change.

The service had fostered positive working relationships with health and social care professionals which led to joint working to expand people's communication skills and identify new ways for people to access health care.

A robust system for staff recruitment, induction and training was in place. This enabled the staff to support people effectively and safely.

The home was clean, tidy and remarkably homely in character. There were systems in place to prevent the spread of infection. Staff were trained in infection control.

Electrical and gas appliances were serviced regularly. Each person had a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) and there was a business plan for any unforeseen emergencies.

The managers and staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA and DoLS provide legal safeguards for people who are unable to make their own decisions.

Effective quality assurance audits were in place to monitor the service. The service regularly sought feedback from the people who lived there and their relatives. Staff had regular supervisions and were invited to team meetings. There was a strong organisational commitment and effective action towards ensuring that there is equality and inclusion across the workforce. There are high levels of satisfaction across all staff and staff told us they were listened to by the managers.

The service had been developed and designed in line with the principles that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance; these values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. This policy asserts that people with learning disabilities and autism using a service should live as ordinary a life as any citizen. This policy can be found on the Care Quality Commission website.