Archived: SENSE Applemead

Updated 4 December 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting 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.

This inspection took place on 21 October 2015. One inspector carried out this inspection. Prior to the inspection, we looked at all the information we had about the service such as records of our contact with them and any notifications. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

We met all four people that used the service and spoke with three relatives. Not everyone was able to verbally share with us their experiences of life at the home. This was because of their complex needs. We therefore used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We looked in depth at two people’s care including their care records. We spoke with six staff which included the registered manager, deputy manager, and four care staff. We looked at one staff member’s recruitment records and at seven staff training, supervision and appraisal records. We looked at the provider’s quality monitoring systems such as audits of medicines, health and safety audits, provider visit reports and at actions taken in response. We sought feedback from health and social care professionals who regularly visited the home including GP’s, community nurses, other therapists and commissioners and received a response from two of them.

Updated 4 December 2015

The inspection took place on 21 October 2015 and was unannounced. We last inspected the service on 19 November 2013, and found the service was compliant with the standards inspected and there were no breaches of regulations.

Applemead is a small care home registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to five deafblind people. The provider is Sense, a national charity. Four people lived at the service when we visited.

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.

Not everyone was able to verbally share with us their experiences of life at the home. This was because of people’s complex needs. We therefore used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

People were supported by staff who were compassionate and kind. Staff spoke about people as individuals and care was personalised to meet their needs. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted by staff who demonstrated a positive regard for each person. Staff demonstrated people mattered in their interactions with them and how they spoke about them.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s care needs, had qualifications in care and received regular training and updating. Staff were experienced and skilled at communicating effectively with the deafblind people they supported using a variety of methods. Staff knew people well and could recognise what people were trying to communicate through gestures, behaviours and vocal sounds.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They knew how to make sure people, who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves, had their legal rights protected. Where people lacked capacity, staff involved relatives and health and social care professionals in making decisions about the person in their ‘best interest.’

People were supported to maintain their health and receive on going healthcare support. They had regular health checks by their local GP who visited them at home and regular dental checks. Health professionals said staff made timely referrals to health professionals to seek advice and implemented their recommendations. This included specialist services such as mental health services, speech and language and occupational therapies as well as physiotherapy.

Risks assessment for individuals and the environment were undertaken and steps identified to reduce risks as much as possible. The environment of the home was suitably adapted for the sensory needs of people with a visual impairment and those with physical disabilities.

Staff were aware of signs of abuse and knew how to report concerns, any concerns reported were investigated. A robust recruitment process was in place to make sure people were cared for by suitable staff.

Relatives, professionals and staff had confidence in the leadership and management at the home. Staff worked well together as a team and the home was organised and well run. The provider had a range of internal and external quality monitoring systems in place, which were well established. There was evidence of making continuous improvements in response to people’s feedback, the findings of audits, and learning lessons following accidents and incidents.