Background to this inspection
Updated
20 February 2019
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 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 was conducted on 17 and 31 December 2018 and was carried out by one adult social care inspector. The inspection was unannounced on the first day and we informed the provider of our intention to return on the second day. Following discussions with people who used the service and staff on 17 December 2018, the second day of the inspection was scheduled to take into consideration that people were looking forward to a vibrant programme of entertainments for the Christmas season which we did not wish to disrupt.
Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, which included the previous inspection report for June 2016 and notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is required by law to tell us about so that we can monitor the service. We had also received a letter from the local fire brigade in November 2018 to inform us of safety concerns they had found at the premises, which were described as ‘minor deficiencies.’ We asked the provider to complete 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. The completed PIR was sent to us within the given timescale.
Over the two inspection days we greeted each person present at the service and had discussions with three people. We also spoke with two support workers, two senior support staff, the registered manager and the visiting locality manager. We reviewed a range of documents which included the care and support plans for three people, medicine records, quality assurance checks, the complaints log and compliments folder, health and safety records, policies and procedures, and the staff files for recruitment, training, supervision and appraisal.
Following the inspection, we spoke by telephone with the relatives of four people who used the service. We contacted five health and social care professionals with knowledge and experience of the service and received written comments from one professional.
Updated
20 February 2019
This unannounced inspection was undertaken on 17 December 2018. We completed the inspection with a second visit on 31 December 2018, after the outings and festivities at the service for the Christmas season.
Vancouver Road-Regards Partnership is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during the inspection. The service provides personal care for up to eight people with a learning disability and/or autistic spectrum disorder. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. The service was registered to accommodate eight people and was at full occupancy on the first day of the inspection. We noted there were seven people living at the care home when we concluded our visit as one person had moved to a different service.
At our previous inspection we rated the service as Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.
People continued to receive safe care. Risk management plans had been developed to mitigate identified risks and the service had taken action in relation to fire safety concerns. The provider had informed us of safeguarding concerns and demonstrated how they had worked with local professionals to safeguard people from abuse. Well-organised systems were in place to safely manage people’s medicine needs. Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed, so that trends could be detected and addressed. People were provided with a clean environment and protected from the risk of cross infection. Robust recruitment practices were in place so that people were supported by staff with the right skills, knowledge and approach to provide kind, respectful, dignified and effective care.
The provider assessed people’s needs before they moved into the service and individual care and support plans were developed to meet people’s needs and wishes. The care and support plans, and accompanying risk assessments were kept under review. Staff were provided with training and support to effectively meet people’s needs. People were asked for their consent prior to receiving personal care and other support. Processes were in place to enable people to make choices about their lives and staff understood how to support people in the least restrictive way possible. Effective care and support was given to enable people to receive a balanced and enjoyable diet, and they were supported by staff to attend health care appointments and adhere to guidance from health care professionals.
People who used the service continued to receive support to engage in fulfilling activities at home and in the wider community. At the time of the service we observed that there was a lively programme of events to mark Christmas and New Year and some people told us they felt very satisfied with their activities. However, external observations indicated that the service could expand on the current activity programme to offer greater variety and interest for people. Complaints were suitably managed and the locality manager confirmed that they were reviewing how they specifically ensured relatives had comprehensive information about the complaints procedure.
We received positive comments about how the service was managed, and the approachable style and integrity of the management team. We observed how people who used the service enjoyed the relaxed and friendly atmosphere that was promoted by management and the staff. Staff felt well supported in their roles and described a culture and ethos that was professional, caring and open. Clear quality assurance systems were in place, which included monitoring visits by the provider’s own quality team. The management team spoke in a transparent manner about challenges the service had faced since the previous inspection and demonstrated that learning for the future took place in these circumstances.
We have made one recommendation for the service to seek guidance from reputable sources about how to further develop the scope of its activity programme.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.