Archived: SENSE - 79 Coriander Close

At the last inspection on 19 March 2015 the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we judged that the service provided remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

People received the support they required to live a full and active life, while maintaining their safety and well- being. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and the registered provider had established robust recruitment checks to ensure new staff were suitable to work in adult social care.

Risks relating to people’s healthcare needs and lifestyle had been assessed. Staff were aware of the support people needed in these areas, and we saw staff providing support that was consistent with these assessments.

All of the people who lived at the home required the support of staff to manage their medicines. Staff responsible for administering medicines had been trained and assessed to be competent. The systems to manage and check the medicines were robust.

Staff had received training and support to ensure they were aware of people’s needs and how to meet them. People received the help they required to maintain good health, to attend health appointments and have enough to eat and drink.

People were supported, as far as possible to have choice and staff supported people in the least restrictive ways possible. When restrictions on people’s liberty were necessary the registered manager had ensured the correct applications had been made to protect each person’s legal rights.

The staff we met knew people well, and were able to tell us about their needs and preferences. Staff had involved people that knew the person well and used their knowledge of the person to plan care that they felt was in the person’s best interest and best fitted their known preferences and wishes.

A range of activities and opportunities were provided each day that were tailored to each person’s needs and preferences. People had been supported to maintain links with people, places and activities that were important to them, and which they had enjoyed earlier in their life.

We received consistent feedback that the home was well run, and that the registered manager and deputy manager were supportive and promoted good practice.

The registered manager had stayed up to date with changes and developments in adult social care, and had ensured she had a good knowledge of the specific care needs that people living at this home experienced. The registered manager and registered provider had a wide range of checks and audits in place that ensured the on-going safety and quality of the service. These had been effective at providing assurances that the service remained good, and that the service was meeting people’s needs.

The inspection was undertaken by one inspector. We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with relatives of all of the people living at the home, with staff and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We checked people's care plans and found that these were detailed. Risks were identified to ensure that people had the care provided safely and risks to them were minimised.

Staff we spoke with were aware of the care that people needed to keep them safe. Staff had received relevant training to ensure that they had skills and knowledge required to meet the individuals identified needs.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. We were informed that policies and procedures were in place and the manager demonstrated a good level of awareness of this area.

Is the service effective?

People's relatives told us that they were happy with the care that was provided and that people's needs had been met. One relative told us, 'It is amazing how X [person's name] has progressed since living there.' Another relative told us, 'Staff know X [person's name] needs very well and are very engaged with X. 'It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of the people's care and support needs and that they knew them well.

Care plans contained information and guidance about people's specific conditions to enable care staff to meet the individual needs of the people who used the service. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded in their care plans and people were supported as much as possible with these interests.

The premises had been adapted so that someone with a sight impairment could find their way around the home.

Is the service caring?

Staff engaged with people in a polite caring and sensitive manner, treating people with dignity and respect. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes. People had access to a range of activities and had been supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.

Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

Is the service responsive?

The provider had a complaints policy which showed people how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. Relatives told us that felt able to raise any concerns.

Each person who lived there had an annual review to discuss their individual needs and goals, and whether they were happy with the home and the care and support they were receiving. Relatives told us that they had the opportunity to feedback about the quality of the service at people's annual review meetings.

Systems in place at the time of our visit had not always ensured that people's health needs would be met. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to address these shortfalls.

Is the service well-led?

Staff and relatives of people living in the home told us that the manager was accessible and took account of their comments. The service had a quality assurance system and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were usually addressed.

We saw that there were regular meetings with staff to discuss quality issues and this helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

The management team held regular team meetings and staff received individual supervision sessions with their manager. This meant they would be clear about their roles and responsibilities.

The provider had an on-call system in place to ensure that appropriate management support was available for staff in an emergency.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register but had applied to cancel their registration. A new manager was in post and had applied to CQC to become the registered manager.

We spoke with the relatives of three people who lived at the home. People's relatives told us that they were satisfied with the care provided. 'I'm very happy with how they are looked after. If staff suspect anything is wrong they take them to the GP.' Another relative told us, 'They seem happy living there.'

The provider had systems in place that helped protect people from abuse.

Staffing arrangements had improved since our last visit. Suitable arrangements were now in place to ensure that agency staff used at the home were suitably qualified, experienced and received an induction to the home.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

We spoke with four relatives of people who lived at the home. People's relatives told us that they were satisfied with the care provided.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. Sense homes have internal audits of the service they provide and area managers visit the home on a monthly basis to support the manager and review the quality of the service provided.

Action was needed regarding staffing arrangements. The high use of bank staff did not ensure there was a consistent team of staff who knew people's needs well. Suitable arrangements were not in place to ensure that agency staff used at the home were suitably qualified, experienced and trained to meet the needs of people with a sensory impairment and learning disability.