Background to this inspection
Updated
16 March 2015
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 was undertaken by one inspector on 11 and 12 December 2014 and was unannounced. 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 improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed the information we held about the home. Providers are required to notify the Care Quality Commission about events and incidents that occur at their home including unexpected deaths and injuries to people receiving care, this also includes any safeguarding matters. We refer to these as notifications. We also received information from two local authorities who had purchased services from the provider. We used this information to plan what areas we were going to focus on during our inspection.
During our inspection we met with two of the people who lived at the home and observed the care and support provided to them. People living at this home all had a learning disability and were also living with single or multiple sensory impairments. People’s needs meant that they were unable to verbally tell us how they found living at the home. One person communicated to us through sign language with the support of a member of staff. During the day we spoke with four members of staff and the registered manager. After the inspection we spoke with the relatives of two people who lived at the home and an ex-member of staff who had remained in contact with one person to find out about their views of the care provided.
We looked in detail at the care records of two people, we looked at the medicine management processes and at records maintained by the home about staffing, training and monitoring the quality of the service. We also looked at the premises to make sure improvements to the suitability of the environment had been made since our last inspection.
Updated
16 March 2015
This inspection was undertaken on 11 and 12 December 2014 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in June 2014, we found that the provider had breached regulations relating to the environment. The provider sent us an action plan to tell us the improvements they were going to make to ensure the service would comply with the regulations. Our findings from this inspection confirmed that the provider was not in breach of any regulations.
Bryndale Avenue is a care home that consists of three individual flats, there are no communal areas shared by people. The home provides accommodation and care for up to three people who have a learning disability and who are living with one or more sensory impairments. People were unable to communicate with us verbally but expressed their feelings through non-verbal communication.
There was a registered manager at this location. 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.
There were management systems in place to monitor the quality of the home. Where there had been incidents we found that there were inconsistencies in the learning that had taken place and actions taken to reduce the risk of similar occurrences.
People’s relatives told us that they had no concerns about their safety. Staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding of procedures in connection with the prevention of abuse. The relatives of people told us they had found the management team approachable and told us they would raise any complaints or concerns should they need to.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and support them to follow interests and pursuits they enjoyed. The home had a stable staff group who had built strong relationships with people who lived there. The home had a robust recruitment process to try to ensure the staff they employed were suitable and safe to work there.
Staff members had an in-depth knowledge of people and their needs. Staff had received training about the needs of deaf blind people and used the knowledge to communicate and support people to make choices in their day-to-day their life.
Staff understood the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards
(DoLS) and consent issues which related to the people in their care. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 legislation provides a legal framework that sets out how to act to support people who do not have capacity to make a specific decision. DoLS provide a lawful way to deprive someone of their liberty, provided it is in their own best interests or is necessary to keep them from harm.
Individual and general risks to people were identified and managed appropriately. The provider had invested in employing specialist staff to assess some of the needs of people such as with eating and drinking or the way people showed their feelings. The specialist staff had produced guides for care staff so that they had the information they needed to meet the complex needs of people living in the home.
We observed people being treated with dignity and respect. People’s relatives told us that the staff were kind, considerate and caring. People were supported in a wide range of interests and hobbies, usually on an individual basis, which were suited to their needs.
People were supported to access healthcare services to maintain and promote their health and well-being. Where staff had concerns about a person’s health they involved appropriate professionals to make sure people received the correct support.
Some aspects of the quality monitoring and self checking systems in the home were not always effective. Some issues had been identified but had not been fully addressed.