Archived: SeeAbility - Woodlands Residential Home

Seeability-Woodlands is a residential care home that provides care, support and accommodation for a maximum of seven adults with varying levels of sight loss and some associated learning and/or physical disabilities. The service is managed by SeeAbility which is the operating name of the charity The Royal School for the Blind. At the time of the inspection five people were living at the service.

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.

Rating at last inspection

At our last inspection we rated the service 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. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated good

People were safe, and staff were aware of how to protect people from abuse. There were sufficient levels of staff on duty to ensure that people’s needs were met. Recruitment was robust to ensure that only appropriate staff were employed. Staff had the training they needed to develop their skills and knowledge.

Risks to people’s care was managed well by staff and people received their medicines in a safe way. Regular health and safety checks of the premises and equipment were carried out. The provider had up-to date procedures to help ensure people remained safe in an emergency.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Routines were set by people living in the home and they could choose how they spent their days. People were supported with their health needs. People had choices of what they wanted to eat and drink.

Where appropriate people had been consulted about their wishes towards the end of their lives and this was recorded.

The home was adapted to meet the needs of people especially regarding their sight loss. The home was clean, and staff used equipment to prevent the spread of infections.

People's needs had been assessed both before and after admission to the service. Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. Care plans were evaluated regularly so they contained information about people's current needs. People could take part in a wide range of activities which they choose. Staff worked well together and communicated changes to people’s needs to each other.

People told us that they would speak to staff if they had any concerns. There was a complaints procedure should anyone wish to complain. There had been no complaints received since we last inspected.

The provider carried out quality assurance checks to ensure people received a good standard of care. Staff consulted with outside professionals to ensure the best delivery of care. Notifications were sent to the CQC where appropriate.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

The inspection took place on 4 May 2016 and was unannounced. This was a comprehensive inspection.

The home 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.

We found that policies and procedures were in place to keep people safe in the event of emergencies. Fire drills and fire alarm tests were carried out along with regular audits of emergency and contingency planning.

Before the inspection, we had been notified of medicines errors. We found that people were administered their prescribed medicines by staff who had received medicines training. Medicines errors had been documented with actions taken to ensure that people were safe and to review staff training where errors had occurred.

Staff understood their role in safeguarding people and we saw that incidents were being reported to the local authority where appropriate. We saw that staff had all received training in safeguarding.

People were supported to achieve their goals by the provider’s rehabilitation service. This service worked with people individually to identify aims and help them towards living as independently as possible with a visual impairment. People were given support to plan meals, go shopping and prepare meals in the kitchen.

The environment contained assistive technology to assist visually impaired people with a number of activities of daily living.

Staff training was tailored to the individual needs of people who live at the home.

We saw evidence that staff provided care in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Procedures were followed when depriving people of their liberty. Some people have been admitted to the home for support under the Mental Health Act. Staff showed understanding of this.

We saw information in care plans that reflected the needs and personalities of people that we spoke to. People had choice about activities they wished to do and the home encouraged people to pursue new interests.

People were given the opportunity to provide feedback on the care they received through residents meetings and keyworker sessions. We saw evidence that issues raised by people were responded to by management.

Staff told us that they were well supported by management and had regular supervision.

People and relatives told us that they had a positive relationship with the registered manager.

One person told us they knew about their care plan and that they talked about it with their keyworker. They also told us that, that they knew how to make a complaint and felt staff would listen to them and be nice if they did. They said that they felt safe at the home, and if anyone upset them they would tell their keyworker.

We saw that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

We also saw that people who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

We found the provider had taken steps to provide care in a home that was suitably designed and adequately maintained.

We saw that staff received appropriate professional development and support.