Archived: Laverneo

Updated 15 September 2017

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.

We visited the service on 26 July 2017 and the inspection was announced. We do this to ensure that someone would be at the service on our arrival. The inspection team consisted of one Adult Social Care Inspector and one expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

Before our inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. We also examined notifications received by the CQC. Notifications are changes, events or incidents that the provider is legally obliged to send us within the required timescales. We spoke with professionals in local authority commissioning teams, safeguarding teams and Healthwatch. We spoke with two external health and social care professionals.

Before the inspection we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a document wherein the provider is required to give some key information about the service, what the service does well, the challenges it faces and any improvements they plan to make. This document had been completed and we used this information to inform our inspection.

We spent time speaking with all four people who used the service and observing interactions between staff and people who used the service. We spoke with five members of staff: the registered manager and four care staff. Following the inspection we spoke with three relatives of people who used the service.

During the inspection visit we looked at three people’s care plans, risk assessments, staff training and recruitment files, quality assurance documents and systems, a selection of the home’s policies and procedures, IT systems, meeting minutes and maintenance records.

Updated 15 September 2017

The inspection took place on 26 July 2017 and was announced. This meant we gave the provider 48 hours notice to ensure there would be someone at the service when we visited. We did this because it is a small service where people are often out during the day.

We previously inspected Laverneo on 3 June 2015, at which time the service was meeting all regulatory standards. At the inspection of June 2015 we rated the service as Good. The service remained rated Good at this inspection

Laverneo is a purpose built bungalow near Sunderland City Centre. The service provides care and support for four adults who have learning disabilities and/or physical disabilities. The service is close to all local amenities.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 who used the service felt safe in the secure and trusting atmosphere at the home. Relatives and external professionals raised no concerns, whilst staff had received refresher training in safeguarding.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty, day and night, in order to keep people safe and meet their needs.

All areas of the building were clean and staff adhered to cleaning schedules to reduce the risks of acquired infections. The premises were well maintained.

Effective pre-employment checks of staff were in place, including Disclosure and Barring Service checks, references and identity checks.

The ordering, storage, administration and disposal of medicines was safe.

Risk assessments were person-centred and staff had clear guidance regarding how to manage the risks people faced.

People had access to GPs, nurses and specialists to get the treatment they needed.

Staff were trained in areas specific to meeting people’s needs, for example epilepsy awareness training, and also in a range of areas the provider considered mandatory, such as safeguarding, health and safety, moving and handling, fire safety and infection control.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisals. Staff told us they were well supported.

People cooked and ate together with staff, were encouraged to have healthy diets and were protected from the risk of malnutrition.

The premises were well adapted to people’s needs, benefitting from a range of new equipment and a new wet room. The registered manager planned to refurbish the kitchen to better meet the needs of people who used the service.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 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.

People who used the service received an excellent continuity of care from staff who knew their needs extremely well and had built mutually trusting relationships with them. Feedback from relatives and external professionals was exceptional in this regard. People who used the service had developed improved independence and confidence with the help of dedicated and compassionate staff. People’s emotional wellbeing was respected and supported by staff and a registered manager who consistently exceeded good standards of care and ensured people could thrive in a caring environment.

The atmosphere at the home was inclusive, vibrant and welcoming, with people who used the service showing a sense of pride and confidence in their surroundings and friendships. People who used the service, relatives and external stakeholders all told us staff were extremely caring and respectful and that the service felt like a home.

Person-centred care plans were in place and regular house meetings took place. Regular reviews of care plans took place and people were keenly involved in these.

The service had built and maintained good community links, particularly with a local community centre.

A range of opportunities to take part in in-house and external activities were in place, with people having the option to go on trips and outings. These opportunities were less flexible and numerous since the service no longer had access to a minibus.

Staff, people who used the service, relatives and external professionals we spoke with were positive about the registered manager’s capabilities and experience. Staff confirmed they took a hands-on approach to the service and we saw they knew people well. They had successfully maintained a caring culture that put people’s wellbeing and opportunities for independence first.