Archived: RNID Action on Hearing Loss Brondesbury Road

Updated 12 July 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 unannounced inspection took place on 27 February and 13 March 2018. The inspection was carried out by one inspector, with support from a BSL interpreter.

Prior to the inspection we looked at information about the service including notifications and any other information received from other agencies. Notifications are information about specific important events the service is legally required to report to us. We reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR). The PIR was information given to us by the provider. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, tells us what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we spoke with four people using the service to obtain feedback about their experiences of the service. We also spoke with two relatives of two people using the service. We spoke with the registered manager, and five care workers. We examined four people's care records. We also looked at personnel records of five staff, including details of their recruitment, training and supervision. We reviewed further records relating to the management of the service, including quality assurance processes, to see how the home was run.

Updated 12 July 2018

RNID – Action on Hearing Loss Brondesbury Road is a service for six people who are deaf, have hearing loss or tinnitus. Some people are deaf/blind and some people display behaviours that may challenge. The service is spacious and provides accommodation on the first and second floor. RNID Action for Hearing Loss Brondesbury Road is located close to Queens Park and Kilburn High Street; both areas provide good transport links and shopping facilities.

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.

At the last inspection, in January 2016 the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There was a system to ensure that people were safe and protected from abuse. Staff knew how to recognise abuse and how to report allegations and incidents of abuse. Recruitment of staff was safe and robust. We saw that pre-employment checks had been completed before staff could commence work. There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people to stay safe. Risks to people’s safety and welfare had been assessed and action taken to minimise the risk. Accident and incident information was analysed to identify trends and where changes were required to prevent future reoccurrences. Regular safety checks were carried out to ensure the premises and equipment were safe for people. We also saw there were systems in place to protect people and staff from infection. There were suitable arrangements for the recording, administration and disposal of medicines.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. People confirmed they were involved in planning their care. We saw that their care was person centred. Their care records showed relevant health and social care professionals were involved in their care. The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) We saw that people's mental capacity to make decisions about their care had been considered as part of the initial care assessment. Their human rights were protected because the requirements of Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) were being followed, which meant they were not deprived of their liberty. There were arrangements to ensure that people’s nutritional needs were met. We also saw that people’s dietary requirements, likes and dislikes were assessed and known to staff. Staff had been trained to meet people's care and support needs.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion by staff. Staff were consistently described as kind and caring. Staff understood the need to protect and respect people's human rights. We saw they had received training in equality and diversity. People’s spiritual or cultural wishes were respected. People told us and we saw that care staff promoted their independence. People were supported to maintain friendships and important relationships, which minimised risk of isolation.

People received person centred care. Their communication needs were met in relation to the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The service had made reasonable adjustments to make sure that communication was made as easy as possible for people using the service. People’s support plans reflected their social needs. They were supported to take part in meaningful activities that were socially and culturally relevant and appropriate to them. People knew how to complain. They told us they could discuss any concerns they had with the registered manager and were confident any issues raised would be dealt with.

The service was well managed and well-led. There were effective quality assurance systems to monitor the quality of service being delivered. The service regularly sought feedback from people and their relatives to help them monitor the quality of care provided. There were also regular audits of care and safety issues. This showed how the management team ensured the service was safe and provided good quality care.