Archived: Care Management Group - 95 Parchmore Road

95 Parchmore Road is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal support for up to five adults with a learning disability. There were five men using the service at the time of our inspection.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good. The registered provider demonstrated they continued to meet the regulations and fundamental standards.

People continued to feel safe and well cared for at the service. Risks relating to people's care and support had been assessed and minimised as far as possible. Detailed behaviour plans were in place for people whose actions were assessed as being a risk to themselves and others. Staff completed relevant training on how to support people positively with their behaviours. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns they had about people’s care and welfare and how to protect them from abuse.

There were enough staff to support people and the provider followed safe recruitment practice to employ suitable staff. People received effective care and support with their needs because staff received ongoing training to keep their knowledge and skills up to date.

People continued to live in a home that was kept clean and well maintained. Regular checks were carried out on the environment and equipment to ensure it was safe and fit for use.

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. People were encouraged to be independent and staff respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff knew people well and how they preferred to be supported. Care plans provided comprehensive information about people's care needs, their likes, dislikes and preferences. People were supported to express their views and were involved in making decisions about their care. Staff understood the different ways people communicated and used communications tools to support their involvement in care planning.

People enjoyed varied social and leisure opportunities that interested them. Staff worked flexibly to support people with their preferred interests, activities and hobbies. The service promoted and supported people's contact with their families and friends. People and relatives were encouraged to share their views and opinions of the service. Arrangements to deal with complaints were in place should they arise.

People were supported to keep healthy and their nutritional needs and preferences were met. Any changes to their health or wellbeing or accidents and incidents were responded to quickly. Referrals were made to other professionals as necessary to help keep people safe and well. People received their medicines safely and when they needed them.

There was an established registered manager who continued to provide effective leadership. The management of the home was open and transparent. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and followed the provider’s values when supporting people.

The provider used effective systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service and had ongoing plans for improving the service people received. Where improvements were needed or lessons learnt, action was taken. Feedback from people who used the service, relatives, and staff was used to improve their experience.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Two people we met told us they were happy living at the home and liked the staff. Due to their needs, other people that we met during our visit were unable to share their direct views about the standards of care they received. We therefore used observations and looked at care records to help us understand their experiences. We also looked at various records around the way the home was being run and toured the premises. We spoke with the new registered manager and four members of staff during the course of our visit. We spoke with one person's relative and a social care professional following our inspection.

People were supported by a stable staff team who had worked at the service for a number of years. Throughout our visit, people looked comfortable and relaxed in the company of the staff who supported them. It was clear from the way staff interacted with people who used the service that they understood their preferred methods of communication.

People using the service had personalised support plans, which were current and outlined how they wanted their care and support to be provided. This meant staff had the information they needed to meet people's individual needs. Where people did not have mental capacity to consent, care was provided in their best interests.

We found the provider worked in co-operation with other professionals to support people with their health and welfare needs. A social care professional told us the home worked well with them. They said the service was 'very good, no problems.'

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

The provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained. There was an on-going refurbishment plan to improve a number of areas in the home.

People received effective care and support because the service had sufficient numbers of staff to support people.

There was a complaints process which showed that people who used the service and their families were supported to raise any concerns.