SENSE - 21a and 21b Johnson Avenue

We found the following examples of good practice.

•There were effective systems to ensure compliance with national policy requirements in areas including COVID-19 testing and arrangements for visiting professionals.

•The registered manager had set up additional PPE stations around the home enabling staff to don and doff their PPE effectively without having to work around the home to find suitable bins.

• Regular refresher training sessions were held in-house as well as regular competency checks.

SENSE - 21a and 21b Johnson Avenue provides accommodation and personal care for up to six people with learning disabilities, autism, and sensory impairments. On the day of our inspection six people were using the service.

SENSE - 21a and 21b Johnson Avenue is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the 'Registering the Right Support' and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At the last inspection in March 2016 this service was rated good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

There was not a registered manager was in post. There was a manager in post who was going through the process of registering with the CQC. This manager was not available on the day of inspection. 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.

People were safe. Risk assessments were in place to cover any risks present. We saw that staff had been appropriately recruited in to the service and security checks had taken place. There were enough staff to provide care and support to people to meet their needs. People received their prescribed medicines safely.

The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision, training and ongoing professional development that they required to work effectively in their roles. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.

People’s relationships with staff were positive and caring. We saw that staff treated people with respect, kindness and courtesy. People had detailed personalised plans of care in place to enable staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people’s personal preferences.

The provider had implemented effective systems to manage any complaints that they may receive.

The service had a positive ethos and an open and honest culture. People and their family members were able to feedback about the service and any concerns identified were acted upon.

21a and 21b Johnson Avenue can provide accommodation and care for six people who have a learning disability and who live with reduced sight or hearing. There were six people living in the service at the time of our inspection. Most of the people had special communication needs and used personal versions of sign assisted language to express themselves. The accommodation was two houses that were next door to each other and which had a connecting hallway on the first floor.

There was 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.

Staff knew how to respond to any concerns that might arise so that people were kept safe from abuse. People had been helped to avoid the risk of accidents and medicines were managed safely. There were enough staff on duty and background checks had been completed before new staff were appointed.

Staff had received training and guidance and they knew how to support people in the right way including how to respond to people who had special communication needs. People had been assisted to receive all of the healthcare assistance they needed.

Staff had ensured that people’s rights were respected by helping them to make decisions for themselves. The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how registered persons apply the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and to report on what we find. These safeguards protect people when they are not able to make decisions for themselves and it is necessary to deprive them of their liberty in order to keep them safe. In relation to this, the registered manager had worked with the relevant local authorities to ensure that people only received lawful care that respected their rights.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff recognised people’s right to privacy, respected confidential information and promoted people’s dignity.

People had been consulted about the support they wanted to receive and they had been given all of the assistance they needed, including people who could become distressed. People had been helped to enjoy a wide range of interests and hobbies. There was a system for resolving complaints.

Quality checks had been completed to ensure that people received safe support. Good team work was promoted and staff were supported to speak out if they had any concerns because the service was run in an open and inclusive way. People had benefited from staff acting upon good practice guidance.

We spoke with the relatives of two people and one health care professional who provided support for people with a learning disability.

One relative told us that the relationships between staff and their relative were ' As perfect as they could be and that staff acted quickly to address any issues identified by them or their relative."

Another relative told us they were happy with the support provided for their relative. They said 'People living at the home have quite a good life with trips out for meals and visits to Peterborough.' They told us 'Staff were very good with everyone and seemed competent and experienced.' They also said 'Staff were coping well with the medical problems their relative had recently had.' Another relative told us staff supported their relative to send emails using a brail keypad.

We found people were supported to be independent by attending the specialist resource centre daily, shopping for their own food, clothes and toiletries. Each person had a designated support worker who was responsible for spending time with the person on their one home day a week.

We saw people were asked for their consent before care was given. Where people lacked capacity to consent care plans contained information on who to include to make a decision in the persons best interest.

We could see people were happy and relaxed in the home. There were good relationships between care staff and people living there.

The home was clean and tidy.

Staffing levels enabled people's needs to be met. Staff were able to respond to changes in care needs to ensure people were safe and looked after.

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 at the time.