Background to this inspection
Updated
29 September 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 provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2014 and 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 we reviewed information we held about the service including statutory notifications. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us. We also reviewed the provider information return (PIR) submitted to us. This is information that the provider is required to send to us, which gives us some key information about the service and tells us what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make.
The inspection was unannounced and carried out by one inspector.
During the inspection we were unable to speak with people who used the service due to their complex health needs. Following the inspection we spoke with four relatives to obtain their views on the service people experienced. We spoke with two staff members, the team leader who was acting as manager and a registered manager for another of the provider’s locations who was providing support in the home. We received information from service commissioners and health and social care professionals. We viewed information relating to two people’s care and support. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the service.
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 could not talk with us due to their complex health needs.
Updated
29 September 2017
This inspection was carried out on 19 September 2017 and was unannounced. At their last inspection on 18 June 2015, they were found to be meeting the standards we inspected. At this inspection we found that they had continued to meet all the standards.
Turning Point- Ambleside provides accommodation for up to six people with learning and physical disabilities. The home is not registered to provide nursing care. At the time of the inspection there were five people living there.
The service did not have a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager had recently left the home and the team leader was providing management cover to the home with the support of an experienced registered manager and the regional manager.
People were supported by staff who knew how to recognise and respond to abuse. Relatives felt people were safe and risks were assessed with plans in place to mitigate these. People were supported by staff who were recruited safely and received training and supervision. People’s medicines were managed safely.
People were supported to make choices were they could and the staff worked in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). People had a variety of foods and were supported to maintain healthy and balanced diet. There was regular access to health and social care professionals.
People were treated with dignity and respect. Relatives told us that staff were kind. People and their relatives were encouraged to be involved in planning and reviewing there care and care was provided in a person centred way. Care records were held securely.
People received care that met their needs and care plans were clear and detailed so staff were able to provide care appropriately. There were activities available that suited people’s needs and people had opportunities to go out in the community and attended day centres regularly. There had been no recent complaints but relatives were comfortable to raise anything that concerned them.
There were quality assurance systems in place and these were used effectively. There were meetings for the team to share practice and changes and surveys to obtain relatives views. The home provided regular updates for people and communicated well to keep relatives informed.