Archived: Norwood - 54 Old Church Lane

Norwood- 54 Old Church Road is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to six people. It caters for older people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection, there were three people living at the home.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People received safe care and were protected against avoidable harm, neglect and discrimination. Risks to people's safety were assessed and strategies were put in place to reduce any risks. Staff understood their responsibility to report any concerns and said they would not hesitate to do so.

There were sufficient numbers of staff who had been safely recruited to meet people's needs. Sufficient staffing levels enabled people’s needs to be met safely and ensured people received consistency in their level of care.

People’s medicines were safely managed, and systems were in place to control and prevent the spread of infection.

Management sought to learn from any accidents or incidents involving people.

Staff received an induction when they first commenced work at the home and ongoing training that enabled them to have the skills and knowledge to provide effective care.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain their health and well-being. A strong emphasis was placed on the dining experience to ensure it was enjoyed by all. The home ensured that only Kosher food was used and prepared as everyone living in the home were Jewish. The home also followed meal preparation according to Jewish law.

Staff supported people to live healthier lives and access healthcare services.

The home had a welcoming atmosphere and was homely. The premises was adapted appropriately to meet the needs of people living in the home.

We saw examples of staff interacting positively with people throughout the inspection. Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people in the home very well and had built up kind and compassionate relationships with them. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support. People's privacy and dignity was always maintained. Where people had additional or different needs relating to equality and diversity, this was recorded and reflected in the care provided.

Our observations and discussions evidenced a positive, learning culture where people were supported to achieve their aims and desired outcomes. The manager and senior management monitored the provision of care and the environment to further improve people's experience of receiving care.

Care plans were detailed and supported staff to provide personalised care. People were encouraged to take part in a variety of activities and interests of their choice. There was a complaints procedure in place and systems in place to deal with complaints effectively.

The home was well managed. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Actions were taken, and improvements were made when required. Staff told us they were motivated to work with the manager to ensure people received good quality care.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or who might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.

As part of thematic review, we carried out a survey with the manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people. The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way. No restrictive intervention practices were used.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 5 June 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Norwood- 54 Old Church Road is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to five people. It caters for older people with a learning disability. At the time of this inspection, there were three people using the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

At the last inspection on 26 November 2014, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People's health and social care needs had been appropriately assessed. Care plans were person-centred, and specific to each person and their needs. Care plans were reviewed monthly and were updated when people's needs changed.

Relatives informed us that they were satisfied with the care and services provided and were confident that people were safe in the home.

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to recognise and report any concerns or allegations of abuse.

Medicines were managed safely. Arrangements were in place for the recording of medicines received into the home and for their storage, administration and disposal.

We found the premises were clean and tidy. There was a record of essential maintenance carried out at the home. Bedrooms had been personalised with people's belongings to assist people to feel at home.

Staff had been carefully recruited and provided with induction and training to enable them to support people effectively. They had the necessary support, supervision and appraisals from management.

Staff we spoke with had an understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA 2005). Capacity to make specific decisions was recorded in people's care plans.

The home had made necessary applications for (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) DoLS as it was recognised that there were areas of people’s care in which their liberties were being deprived. Relevant authorisations had been granted and were in place.

There were suitable arrangements for the provision of food to ensure that people's dietary needs were met.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Care records indicated that the needs of people had been attended to.

Staff we spoke with told us that they enjoyed working at the home and felt supported by the team and the management. One member of staff told us 'the manager and assistant manager are very supportive and they look after staff ' they are understanding'.

Staff demonstrated that they were aware of what action to take when responding to allegations or incidents of abuse and had received training in safeguarding people.

We observed that there were appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines and staff were aware of the importance of ensuring that medicines were administered and recorded accurately.

We saw that people's personal records including medical records were accurate and fit for purpose.

During this inspection we found that that the provider had made the necessary improvements to make sure people who use the service received safe and appropriate care.

We observed that all people appeared well cared for. They were appropriately and discreetly supported by staff when this was required. Staff communicated with people according to their individual needs so they were kept informed about what was happening in the home and enabled to make choices in their daily life. Where people needed support with communication, this was addressed in their care plans.

People were supported with their healthcare needs and encouraged to take part in social and recreational activities and to be a part of their community. For example on the day of the inspection two people told us they were going shopping and would have lunch outside the home.

We found that the provider had not always addressed maintenance issues in a timely manner to ensure people were protected against risks associated with unsafe premises. They had also not ensured that incident/accident reports were appropriately completed when people sustained bruises or other injuries and these were not appropriately dealt with to identify a cause and to rule out suspicions of abuse.