All inspections: SENSE - 38 Church Street

The inspection took place on 21 February 2017 and was unannounced.

Sense - 38 Church Street is a care home which provides personal care for six people who experience a range of learning disabilities, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. Upstairs there are three flats for people who are able to live more independent lives. The accommodation for another three people is on the ground floor and includes private en-suite bedrooms and shared communal areas. There were five people living at the home when we inspected.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There were enough staff to care for people and they were supported to develop and maintain the skills needed to provide safe care. Staff had received training in how to recognise abuse and were confident to raise any concerns.

Risks to people were identified and action was taken to mitigate those risks and keep people safe. Medicines were safely managed and people were encouraged and supported to be independent with their medicines. People’s ability to maintain a healthy weight was monitored and appropriate advice and support was sought from healthcare professionals if needed.

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. Where people were unable to make choices about their lives the registered manager, staff, healthcare professionals and family members made choices in people’s best interest.

Staff were kind and caring and had the skills to communicate and develop relationships with the people living at the home. People were supported to develop their independence in all areas of their lives dependant on their skills and abilities.

Staff knew people’s care needs and were supported by informative care plans developed by people living at the home, their family members and staff. People were supported to live meaningful lives with appropriate activities and work placements.

The home was well led and people living at the home and their relatives had their views of the care they received gathered. The registered manager took notice of people’s views and made changes to the home and care as a result. There were effective audits in place to monitor the quality of the care provided for people and the registered manager took account of reports from external agencies

Further information is in the detailed findings below

We inspected this service on 23 October 2014. This was an unannounced inspection.

At the last inspection in September 2013, we found the provider had met the legal requirements in the areas we reviewed.

Thirty eight Church Street is a care home which provides personal care for six people who experience a range of learning disabilities, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. Three of the people are supported in their own flats situated on the upper floor of the property. The other three people are supported in ground floor accommodation which included single bedrooms and shared communal areas.

The service has 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.

During our inspection we found that the registered manager and staff put the care and welfare of people at the centre of what they do. We found they encouraged people to be as independent as possible and supported people to be involved with their care planning. One person told us they liked living at the home because they were supported to access the community and attend a work placement. We saw this gave them a sense of achievement.

The care people were provided with met their needs and was delivered in a way which was intended to keep people safe. Where people were not well we saw they were referred to a health care professional to see if any changes in care were needed. Any changes in care had been implemented promptly. While care was planned and delivered safely we did identify some concerns about how quickly written care plans were developed.

During the inspection we saw there were always enough staff to provide care safely and as recorded in people’s care plans.

People’s human rights were protected by staff who had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where a person may not have the ability to make a certain decision an assessment was completed to see if they understood the choice they were asked to make. Where people were not able to make a decision we saw decisions had been made in their best interest by family members and professionals involved in their care.

The registered manager had kept up to date with changes in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These are laws which aim to make sure that people in care homes are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom.

The provider had a set of corporate values and staff were aware of them and how they were used to provide a quality service to people. One member of staff told us how the values were a statement of what people could expect from staff.

Staff had received appropriate training which allowed them to care for people safely. Staff’s abilities to meet the needs of people were continually monitored to identify if they were of an acceptable standard.

There were systems in place to continually review and improve the quality of service people received. Incidents and accidents were analysed and changes made to care plans to reduce the number of occurrences.

The provider had systems in place to capture the views and concerns of people who used the service to see if any improvements were needed. There was a complaints policy in place and people and relatives told us they knew how to complain. However, the registered manager confirmed they had received no complaints in the last year. The provider used surveys to gather the views of people using the service and reviewed the information to improve the quality of service they provided.

The provider had not taken account of a local authority report which had identified that a person’s risk assessments were overdue for review. The risk assessments had also not been reviewed in line with timescales defined in provider’s policy. This meant the registered manager had not taken account of external reports or polices to improve the quality of service they provided.

During our inspection we spoke with five of the six people who received a personal care service. Provider staff supported our communication with some people via British sign language. One person we spoke with said they loved the decoration of their flat. Another told us they, 'Like the support and living here.'

We spoke with two relatives who told us they valued the care provided by the staff and manager. One told us the staff cared for and related to people they support in an age appropriate way. With this in mind they said the staff had, 'Helped us realise (our relative) is growing up.' Another stated that when they visited they were made to feel welcome and that their relative who received a service, 'Always responds well to staff and particularly their key worker.'

Relatives told us that they trusted the staff and manager and knew how to raise concerns if required.

We spoke with a visiting physiotherapist who told us staff appropriately sought and followed advice in relation to physiotherapy programmes which required their support and encouragement.

During our visit we observed positive and warm interaction between staff and the people who lived there. We saw personal care was delivered respectfully and in a way which recognised the different needs and personalities of the people they were supporting. We saw staff worked to support choice and autonomy, and respected the choices people made.

This meant that people were well cared and experienced an enhanced quality of life.

We found the building was secure, clean and well maintained. Public areas were welcoming and well decorated. Private rooms were well equipped and reflected the personalities of people who lived there.

The people at Sense - 38 Church Street on the day we visited were unable to answer direct questions about their experience of the home and whether they felt involved and respected. However their experiences were captured through records, other information we received from the manager and staff, and from other people they had contact with.

We saw there were good relationships between the care workers and people who used the service. There was lots of laughter and people were relaxed and happy. Care staff ensured people maintained links with their families and the local community.

We saw people enjoyed their evening meal. Special diets were catered for and people had the equipment needed for them to be as independent in eating as their abilities allowed.

The home was clean and tidy when we looked round and staff were able to tell us how they reduced the risk of infection.

In view of the communication needs of the people who use the service, we relied on observations between the staff and people who use the service, information provided by the staff and the service provider.

We spoke with two staff during our visit. Staff were very positive about working in the home and praised the teamwork and supportive atmosphere.

Archived: SENSE - 38 Church Street

All Inspections

21 February 2017

During a routine inspection

23 October 2014

During a routine inspection

27 September and 3 October 2013

During a routine inspection

21 August 2012

During a routine inspection

7 June 2011

During a routine inspection