We carried out a review of the data available to us about SENSE - 38 Redgate Court 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 - 38 Redgate Court, you can give feedback on this service.
The care home 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 living in the home can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
SENSE – 38 Redgate Court is registered to accommodate up to six people with physical disabilities and learning disabilities who may also have difficulties with hearing and seeing. The accommodation is on two floors with no passenger lift only stair access. There are six single bedrooms, two on the ground floor with a toilet and bathroom and four on the first floor with a bathroom and shower room.
At our last inspection in March 2016 we rated the home good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the home has not changed since our last inspection.
This inspection was completed on 10 July 2018 and there were six people living in the home at the time of the inspection.
A registered manager was not in post. A manager was in situ and was, in the registered managers absence, responsible for the day-to-day running of the service. The manager told us they would be applying to CQC to become registered. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run.
The registered manager had left on 6 July 2018. The provider had appointed a new manager (the previous deputy) who began on 9 July 2018. The manager in SENSE – 38 Redgate Court understood their responsibilities in relation to notifying CQC of certain events that happened at the home.
People were safe because potential risks to people had been recognised and information on how to minimise risks had been recorded as guidance for staff to follow. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to keeping people safe from harm and abuse. Medicines were managed safely. There were enough staff of the right skill mix on duty to meet people’s support needs.
People received an effective service because their needs were met by staff who were well trained and supported to do their job. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the home supported this practice. People's nutritional needs were met by staff who knew each person's needs well. People’s health and wellbeing was maintained and they had access to a range of health and social care professionals.
People received good care because staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People had choices in all aspects of their daily lives and were able to continue with interests, activities and friendships outside the home. Staff ensured people remained as independent as possible.
People received a service that was responsive. People, their relatives and advocates (where appropriate) were involved in their personalised support plans and reviews. The information about them in relation to their care and support was up to date.
People were encouraged to take part in a range of activities that they enjoyed and were the choice of the person at that time. This helped promote social inclusion. Information was in place to support people with end of life care should this ever be needed.
People had received a service that was well led. Quality assurance systems were used to check that the staff provided quality care and the manager made improvements where necessary. People were encouraged to share their views about the quality of the service provided.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This comprehensive inspection took place on 1 March 2016 and was announced. A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection and had been in post for approximately ten years. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 kept safe and staff were knowledgeable about reporting any incident of harm. People were looked after by enough staff to support them with their individual needs. Pre-employment checks were completed on staff before they were assessed to be suitable to look after people who lived at the home. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and medicines were safely managed.
People ate and drank sufficient amounts of food and drink and there were choices of food that they liked to eat. They were also supported to access health care services and their individual health needs were met.
The CQC is required by law to monitor the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA] and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] and to report on what we find. The provider was acting in accordance with the requirements of the MCA so that people had their rights protected by the law. Assessments were in place to determine if people had the capacity to make decisions in relation to their care. When people were assessed to lack capacity, their care was provided in their best interests. In addition, the provider had notified the responsible authorities when some of the people had restrictions imposed on them for safety reasons. The provider was meeting the conditions of people’s authorised DoLS applications.
People were looked after by staff who were trained and supported to do their job.
People were supported by kind, respectful and attentive staff. People, and their relatives, were given opportunities to be involved in the review of their individual care plans.
People were supported with a range of hobbies and interests that took part in and out of the home. Care was provided based on people’s individual needs. There was a process in place so that people’s concerns and complaints would be listened and responded to.
The registered manager was supported by a team of managerial and care staff. Staff were supported and managed to look after people in a safe way. Staff, people and their relatives were able to make suggestions and actions were taken as a result. Quality monitoring procedures were in place and action had been taken where improvements were identified.
As part of this inspection we observed activities taking place, looked around the premises, spoke with two relatives, the registered manager and three members of care staff. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the service which included two care plans, daily records, staff records and quality assurance monitoring records. People who we spoke with had complex communication needs and were unable to verbally tell us their views.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.
If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary, please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People's social and health care needs were met in a safe and appropriate way and indicated that they felt safe, because they showed signs of being active and not withdrawn.
Health and safety risk assessments had been carried out and measures were in place to minimise these, to keep people safe.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care services. Applications have needed to be submitted and proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff have been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.
The care home was visibly clean and there were procedures in place to protect people from becoming unwell from (preventable) infections.
There were enough members of staff to safely meet people's needs. This included providing one-to-one ratio of care staff.
Is the service effective?
People's ability to give their informed consent about how they were to be looked after and treated, was formally assessed. Where people were assessed not have this mental capacity, there were clear, 'best interest' reasons made as to why they needed to be kept safe and well.
People's health and wellbeing needs were effectively met. This included supporting people to take part in social and work-related activities. In addition, people were supported to maintain contact with their relatives.
Is the service caring?
People were treated in a respectful and dignified way by attentive, patient and caring staff members. People indicated that they liked members of staff because they were kind and showed an interest in the individual person.
Relatives had positive comments about how well their family members were looked after. This was described as being, 'Absolutely wonderful.'
Is the service responsive?
People's individual social and health care needs were responded to. People were supported to maintain contact with their family members. They were also supported to access a range of social and work-related activities.
Is the service well-led?
People who used the service, their relatives and members of staff had opportunities to make suggestions and comments. We found evidence that these were considered and acted on, where this was possible.
There was a system in place to analyse information in relation to incidents.
During January 2014, the provider wrote to us and reported on what remedial action they had taken to become compliant. We reviewed the information that the provider sent to us. We noted that effective improvements had been made, following our last inspection, regarding the recruitment of new staff members. This meant that people who use the service are no longer placed at risk of harm from unsuitable members of staff.
Our observations noted that people's wellbeing was promoted and maintained because they were provided with opportunities to engage in meaningful activities. Their physical health was also maintained. Positive comments were made by people who used the service and these were supported by written positive comments made by their representatives.
People were supported to eat and drink a sufficient amount and this was kept under review. In addition, people's dietary preferences and choices were catered for.
Since we last inspected the service on 13 November 2012, improvements had been made to the maintenance of the home's environment. People lived in a comfortable, safe and generally well-maintained care home.
There was enough equipment available for people to safely use and which supported their individual needs. One person said that their bed was comfortable.
The majority of required information had been obtained during staff recruitment procedures,in respect of new members of staff. However, there were deficiencies in the access to the application forms and information regarding staff employment histories. Improvements are required because of this.
There were systems in place to listen to what people had to say, including making a concern or complaint. However, people were overall very satisfied with the standard and quality of the support and care provided at the care home.
We spoke with one person who lived at the home who said they, "Liked it here" and they had been out with staff to choose some snacks to buy.
There were appropriate arrangements in place for the management of medicines although we identified two issues relating to the recording of 'as required' or occasional medicines. The provider may find it useful to note the issues so that they can ensure the procedures for recording the administration of these items minimise the risk of potential error.
The premises was generally in good decorative order, clean, safe and comfortable. A problem with the structure of the building had continued since our previous inspection in January 2012. Since our last visit, the landlords had completed an assessment, the building was safe but still required some internal maintenance.
Staff were well supported, received regular training and had the necessary skills to fulfill their role.
Care records were stored securely, well maintained and reflected the needs of people who used the service. Records of health and safety checks and staff training were also well maintained.