Archived: SENSE The Manor House

Updated 19 December 2017

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 registered persons continued to meet 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.

Before the inspection, the registered persons completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks them to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also examined other information we held about the service. This included notifications of incidents that the registered persons had sent us since our last inspection. These are events that happened in the service that the registered persons are required to tell us about. We also invited feedback from the principal local authority who contributed to the cost of some of the people who lived in the service. We did this so that they could tell us their views about how well the service was meeting people’s needs and wishes.

We visited the service on 6 November 2017. The inspection team consisted of a single inspector and the inspection was announced. We gave the registered persons a short period of notice because the people who lived in the service had complex needs for care and benefited from knowing in advance that we would be calling to their home.

During the inspection visit we spoke or spent time with five of the people who lived in the service. We also spoke with four care staff, two team leaders, the deputy manager, the registered manager and the operations manager. We observed care that was provided in communal areas and looked at the care records for three of the people who lived in the service. We also looked at records that related to how the service was managed including staffing, training and quality assurance.

In addition, we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who are not able to speak with us.

After our inspection visit we spoke by telephone with three relatives.

Updated 19 December 2017

We carried out this announced inspection on 6 November 2017. We gave the service a short period of notice. This was because the people who lived there had complex needs for care and benefited from knowing in advance that we would be calling.

SENSE The Manor House is registered to provide accommodation and care for seven people who have a learning disability and/or a sensory disability. At the time of our inspection visit there were seven people living in the service. Some of the people lived with significantly reduced sight and/or hearing. In addition, most of them had special communication needs and used personal forms of sign assisted language.

The service was run by a charitable body that was the registered provider. There was a registered manager in post. 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. In this report when we speak about both the charitable body who ran the service and the registered manager we refer to them as being, ‘the registered persons’.

At the last inspection on 18 November 2015 we found that the service was well managed so that people reliably received safe, effective, caring and responsive support. As a result the overall quality rating we gave the service was, ‘Good’.

At this inspection we found the service continued to be well managed so that people received all of the care they needed. Consequently, our overall quality rating for the service remained, ‘Good’.

In more detail, there were systems, processes and practices to safeguard people from situations in which they may experience abuse. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed, monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe while their freedom was respected. In addition, medicines were managed safely. Suitable arrangements had been made to ensure that sufficient numbers of suitable staff were deployed in the service to support people to stay safe and meet their needs. Background checks had been completed before new care staff had been appointed. People were protected by the prevention and control of infection and lessons had been learnt when things had gone wrong.

Care staff had been supported to deliver care in line with current best practice guidance. People enjoyed their meals and were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. In addition, people had been enabled to receive coordinated and person-centred care when they used or moved between different services. As part of this, people had been supported to live healthier lives by having suitable access to healthcare services so that they received on-going healthcare support. Furthermore, people had benefited from the accommodation being adapted, designed and decorated in a way that met their needs and expectations.

Suitable arrangements had been made to obtain consent to care and treatment in line with legislation and guidance.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion and they were given emotional support when needed. They were also supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care as far as possible. This included having access to lay advocates if necessary. Confidential information was kept private.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Care staff knew how to use sign assisted language to communicate with people and they provided reassurance when people became distressed. People were supported to undertake a range of occupational and social activities. In addition, their concerns and complaints were listened and responded to in order to improve the quality of care. Furthermore, suitable provision had been made to support people at the end of their life to have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.

There was a positive culture in the service that was open, inclusive and focused upon achieving good outcomes for people. People benefited from there being a management framework to ensure that staff understood their responsibilities so that risks and regulatory requirements were met. The views of people who lived in the service, relatives and staff had been gathered and acted on to shape any improvements that were made. Quality checks had been completed to ensure people benefited from the service being able to quickly put problems right and to innovate so that people consistently received safe care. Good team work was promoted and staff were supported to speak out if they had any concerns about people not being treated in the right way. In addition, the registered persons worked in partnership with other agencies to support the development of joined-up care.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.