Archived: Langdon Community

Langdon Community is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. The service is run by a Jewish organisation and specialises in providing support to people with a learning difficulty. Support is provided both to people living independently and living in small group settings.

People’s experience of using this service:

The service had a new manager in post and was in the process of a restructure to ensure improvements to management oversight. Evidence of consistent and sustained good practice is required in order to demonstrate the service is well led.

The new manager had previous experience as a registered manager and was committed to driving improvement within the service.

People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the manager and told us they found them to be approachable and responsive to addressing any concerns raised.

There were systems in place to support the safe recruitment of staff which included references and checks with the disclosure and barring service (DBS).

Staff told us they had the training and support they needed to safely undertake their role. Training records showed that training was up to date.

Assessments and care plans were in place. These contained information about peoples likes and dislikes and preferences. Improvement to care records were being made.

Full consideration was given to how people were to be supported with their cultural and religious needs.

People told us they had choice and that independence was promoted. Care records demonstrated people were supported to be as independent as possible.

We observed staff to be kind and caring. The staff we talked to spoke with genuine affection about the people they were supporting.

People were supported to engage in a variety of activities within the community and supported to access employment.

Staff told us the culture of the organisation was open, they felt listened to and able to raise concerns. They knew these would be appropriate addressed.

The service was committed to using information from accidents, incidents, safeguarding, concerns and complaints to drive improvement within the service. This work was ongoing.

Rating at last inspection:

At our last inspection (22 September 2016) the service had an overall rating of Good.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating of the service at the last inspection.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor the service through information we receive and future inspections.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

This was an announced inspection which took place on 10 and 11 August 2016.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 we spoke with were very complimentary about the registered manager

People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt safe with staff from Langdon Community.Recruitment procedures were in place which ensured staff had been safely recruited. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Staff and managers knew the people who used the service well.

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults. They were aware of the correct action to take if they witnessed or suspected any abuse. Staff were aware of the whistleblowing (reporting poor practice) policy in place in the service.

There was a safe system in place for managing people’s medicines.

People’s needs were assessed before they started to use the service. Care records were very detailed and person centred and contained information about people’s health and social care needs. Care records were written using very respectful terms. They provided staff with sufficient detail to guide them on how best to support people and understand how people communicated.

Care records were regularly reviewed and updated. This helped to ensure they fully reflected people’s needs.

The service had a positive approach to risk management. Person centred risk assessments were in place that supported staff to manage risk in a positive way. They also gave staff guidance on how to promote the person’s independence whilst managing risks.

The service placed great importance on promoting people’s independence and identified people’s preferences and routines. Care records contained information on what people could do for themselves, skills they wanted to learn and how staff could promote people's independence.

The service had detailed guidance for staff on how to support people when they showed behaviour that challenged the service. Records contained information about what may make someone upset or angry and guided staff in how to respond, what to say and what to do to help the person and diffuse situations. This included understanding how the person communicated and guided staff on how to respond. The service also recognised and valued people's own communication methods including using signs, gestures and sounds.

People were supported to access a wide range of activities, hobbies, work placements and places of interest to them.

The provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff were able to tell us how they supported people to make their own decision. The managers in the service were aware of the process to follow should a person lack the capacity to consent to their care.

Staff received an induction and were provided with a wide range of training that would help them carry out their roles effectively. Training was also given about people’s health conditions and equipment that people used. Staff had regular supervision and team meetings and told us they felt very well supported by the organisation and managers from the service. Staff told us they enjoyed the work they did and enjoyed working for the organisation.

People had access to a range of health care professionals. We saw that detailed records were kept of any visits or appointments.

All the people we spoke with were positive about the service and the caring attitude of the staff and managers from the service. We found that the registered manager and staff spoke about people in compassionate and caring ways. They treated people with dignity and respect and were encouraging and enthusiastic when talking with people.

People’s religious and cultural needs were respected. They were supported to observe and practise their culture and religion.

Managers of the service used a robust system of quality assurance and audits and used this to help improve the quality of the service provided. There was a complaints procedure for people to voice their concerns.

The service had a range of ways of involving people and getting their ideas for how the service could be improved.

The service had notified CQC of any accidents, serious incidents, safeguarding allegations and DoLS applications as they are required to do.

We found that people were asked for consent and the provider acted in accordance with people's wishes. The people we spoke with told us they were asked for consent and the staff provided care and support based on their likes and dislikes.

We found that people who use the service received care in a way that met their needs and preferences. The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care and support they received. They told us the staff encouraged them to live independently and that they had regular reviews with their key workers.

We found that people were cared for by staff that had been through the appropriate recruitment checks. There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. The people we spoke with told us the staff were helpful and supported them appropriately and that staff were available when needed.

We found there was regular monitoring of the services provided to help protect people against the risks of inappropriate or unsafe care.