We carried out a review of the data available to us about SENSE - 509 Leeds and Bradford Road on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about SENSE - 509 Leeds and Bradford Road, you can give feedback on this service.
SENSE - 509 Leeds and Bradford Road is a residential care home registered to provide accommodation for adults under 65 years of age who require nursing or personal care and have a diagnosis of a learning disability and or a mental health condition. On the day of our inspection four people were living in the home. The service can support up to five people.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using the service
People were supported safely and protected from harm. There were systems in place to reduce the risk of abuse and to assess and monitor potential risks to people.
The management of medicines was safe. Risk assessments had been completed and were regularly reviewed. Incidents and accidents were managed effectively; lessons were learned to prevent future risks.
Staff were skilled and experienced to meet the needs of people who used the service. Staff completed training, supervisions and appraisals.
People said staff were kind and caring. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their dignity. People were involved in decisions about their care. People's right to privacy was maintained by staff.
Staff understood people’s likes, dislikes and preferences and people were offered choices about their care. Staff were provided with specific guidance for how to communicate with people that were unable to verbalise their needs.
People were involved in meal choices and supported to maintain a balanced diet. Health needs were regularly monitored, and staff followed the advice health care professionals gave them.
Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to 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.
A complaints system was in place and complaints were managed effectively. People told us they knew how to complain if needed.
The provider had quality assurance systems to monitor the quality and safety of the care provided. People were asked for their views and the provider engaged with other agencies and services to improve their knowledge of good practice.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for the service was good (published 21 March 2017)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
SENSE- 509 Leeds and Bradford Road provides care for up to five people who have a learning disability. 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 legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At this inspection we found people were safe; risk was well managed and systems were in place to make sure they were safeguarded from abuse. People lived in a pleasant and homely environment which was well maintained. The provider had improved safety around water temperature in bathrooms. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and robust procedures were in place to make sure suitable staff were employed. Medicines were managed safely. The provider had improved systems since the last inspection which included different storage arrangements, clearer guidance for staff and more regular checks.
Staff were supported to do their job well and were appropriately supervised and trained. Principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were being adhered to. Systems were in place to promote choice and assist people to make decisions when they needed help. People’s nutritional needs were met and a range of other professionals were involved to help make sure people stayed healthy.
People were well cared for. Staff were able to tell us about people’s history, likes and preferences, and knew the people they were supporting well. There was a happy, friendly atmosphere and people were relaxed in the company of staff and others they lived with. They were comfortable in their home and freely accessed all areas. Information was displayed to help promote choice and keep people informed.
Care plans contained good information which guided staff around how care should be delivered. People had sections that identified; ‘what’s important’, ‘what people like and admire about me’, ‘how best to support me’, ‘what’s working’, ‘what’s not working’ and ‘my communication’. Person centred activities were provided within the service and the local community. Systems were in place which gave people opportunity to share their views and a clear procedure was in place to receive any formal complaints although none had been received in the last 12 months. The service had received several compliments.
The registered manager was knowledgeable about the service, its vision and values. They knew people who used the service well. We received positive feedback about the registered manager.
Everyone was regularly involved with the service, and encouraged to help drive improvement. The provider had effective quality management systems in place to monitor the service; these had improved and were more robust which ensured people received safe, quality care.
We inspected the service on 20 and 24 March 2015. The visit was unannounced. Our last inspection took place on 4 November 2013 and there were no identified breaches of legal requirements.
509 Leeds and Bradford Road provide accommodation for up to five people with multiple disabilities including sensory impairment. It is located in the Bramley area of Leeds. It is close to local shops and is a short bus journey away from the centre of Leeds.
There was a manager in post; however this person was not registered. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
During our visit we saw people looked well cared for. We observed staff speaking in a caring and respectful manner to people who lived in the home. Staff demonstrated that they knew people’s individual characters, likes and dislikes.
Not all of the people spoken with during the inspection were able, due to complex care needs, to tell us about their experience of living at the home. Two people we spoke with told us they felt safe living at the home. They told us they trusted and liked the staff and felt they were well looked after at the home.
We found the service was meeting the legal requirements relating to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We were told that all five people using the service were subject to authorised deprivation of liberty. People’s care records demonstrated that all relevant documentation was securely and clearly filed.
We found there were issues with regard to the management of medicines within the home. This was in relation to the administration and storage of medicines.
We found issues relating to the allocation of staff for people who were assessed as requiring one member of staff to support them for a set number of hours per week. We also found people were not having access to social activities which had been identified for them to attend.
We were concerned as we found there were gaps in people’s daily records which meant staff had not recorded the care people were receiving at the home.
Staff we spoke with told us they were aware of their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding people who lived at the home. They were able to tell us about the symptoms of possible abuse taking place and how they would report this.
We saw the provider had a system in place for the purpose of assessing and monitoring the quality of the service. However, we identified a number of concerns relating to management of medicines, record keeping and the inconsistencies in meeting the social needs of people using the service. This meant the system was not robust.
We looked at four staff personnel files and saw the recruitment process in place ensured that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.
We looked in people’s bedrooms and found people had personalised their rooms with ornaments and photographs.
We found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
People who used the service appeared happy with the care and support they received. This was because people were treated with respect and supported in meeting their care needs, whilst maintaining their independence.
People were not protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not been followed. The provider did not have processes and procedures in place for infection prevention and control. People were not cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. People who used the service were at risk from health care associated infection.
People's needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care and person centre plans. They contained a good level of information setting out exactly how each person should be supported to ensure that their needs were met. One person told us, 'It's nice living here.' Another person told us, 'I like living here.'
Medicines were given to people appropriately. People we spoke with said that they received their medication on time and when they needed it.
People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. This included carrying out a Criminal Records Bureau check and obtaining references from previous employers.
There was an effective complaints system in place. Complaints people made were responded to appropriately. People told us if they had any concerns or complaints they would discuss them with members of staff and they were confident of using the complaints system.
We spoke with staff during our visit. Staff were very positive about working in the home and praised the teamwork and supportive atmosphere.