Background to this inspection
Updated
20 December 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 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 comprehensive inspection took place on 08 November 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours' notice because we needed to be sure that someone would be in.
The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience who was assisted by a supporter. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
During this inspection we spoke with one person using the service and two relatives. We spoke with three members of staff on the day of our visit. They included the registered manager, the team leader and one care and support staff member. We observed the interactions between people who used the service and staff.
We reviewed the care records of two people that used the service which included their care plans, health and medication records, risk assessments and daily care records. We also looked at the recruitment records for two members of staff to see how the provider operated their recruitment procedures. Other records we examined related to the management of the service and included staff rotas, training and supervision records, quality audits and service user feedback, in order to ensure that robust quality monitoring systems were in place.
Updated
20 December 2017
52 Porthcawl Green provides 24 hour care and support for a maximum of three adults with a learning disability. The house is located in a residential area in Milton Keynes. At the time of our visit there were three people using the service.
At the last inspection on 12 November 2015 the service was rated Good.
At this inspection on 08 November 2017 we found the service remained Good.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
People continued to receive safe care. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report them. People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. The premises were appropriately maintained to support people to stay safe. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.
Systems were in place to ensure the premises was kept clean and hygienic so that people were protected by the prevention and control of infection. There were arrangements in place for the service to make sure that action was taken and lessons learned when things went wrong, to improve safety across the service
People’s needs and choices were assessed and their care provided in line with up to date guidance and best practice. The care that people received continued to be effective and meet their needs. Staff received an induction process when they first commenced work at the service and in addition also received on-going training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people.
People received enough to eat and drink and staff gave support when required. People were supported by staff to use and access a wide variety of other services and social care professionals. The staff had a good knowledge of other services available to people and we saw these had been involved with supporting people using the service. People were supported to access health appointments when required, including opticians and doctors, to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.
People’s diverse needs were met by the adaptation, design and decoration of premises and they were involved in decisions about the environment. Staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and they gained people's consent before providing personal care.
People had developed positive relationships with the staff, who were caring and treated people with respect, kindness and courtesy. The culture was open and honest and focused on each person as an individual. People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided and staff had a good understanding of people's needs and preferences.
People were listened to, their views were acknowledged and acted upon and care and support was delivered in the way that people chose and preferred. Care plans were person centred and reflected how people’s needs were to be met. Records showed that people and their relatives were involved in the assessment process and the on-going reviews of their care. People were supported to take part in activities which they wanted to do, within the service and the local community. There was a complaints procedure in place to enable people to raise complaints about the service.
The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The registered manager and senior staff were positive role models which encouraged communication and learning. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service and it was used to drive continuous improvement. A range of quality checks were in place and used regularly to ensure people received a good quality service driven by improvement.