Background to this inspection
Updated
21 March 2019
The inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) 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 Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team: One inspector carried out the inspection.
Service and service type: Sunderland City Council - 2 Fenwick Close is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
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 had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. The registered manager was responsible for the management of all three bungalows at Fenwick Close. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection: We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small. We needed to be sure that they would be in.
What we did: We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed all the information we held about the service, this included notifications of significant changes or events.
We checked for feedback we received from members of the public, local authorities and clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). We also checked Companies House records.
During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, a team leader and one care worker. The people who used the service could not verbally communicate with us. So, we spent time with both people to observe how they were supported. We reviewed two people's care records, two staff personnel files, audits and other records about the quality and safety of the service.
After our visit we had telephone conversations with two relatives of people who used the service.
We requested additional evidence to be sent to us after our inspection. This was received and the information was used as part of our inspection.
Updated
21 March 2019
About the service: Sunderland City Council - 2 Fenwick Close was a purpose built bungalow in a residential street. It was registered for the support of up to three people. Two people were using the service.
People’s experience of using this service: The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support through promoting choice, involving people in their local community and promoting their independence. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
People received a highly personalised service. Relatives gave very positive feedback about the care provided and we observed many positive interactions between people and staff.
Both relatives and staff felt the home was safe. Staff were aware of the safeguarding and whistle blowing procedures and knew how to raise concerns. Previous safeguarding concerns had been dealt with appropriately. Staffing levels were appropriate and new staff recruited safely.
Incidents and accidents were monitored closely and the findings used to identify trends.
Infection control was maintained to a high standard. Relatives gave very positive feedback about cleanliness and the environment. Health and safety and infection control checks ensured a clean and safe environment.
Medicines were well managed to ensure people received the medicines they needed.
Staff received the support and training they needed. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff had an excellent understanding of people's needs and used this to support people to make choices and decisions. People were supported with their nutritional and healthcare needs as needed.
In-depth assessments, which included considering religious, social and lifestyle needs, were used as the baseline for developing individualised care plans. People were supported to engage with meaningful activities which matched their interests.
Staff and relatives confirmed the home was well-led. Although relatives did comment that due to the provider restructuring its services, there had been regular changes in staffing. There was a structured and effective approach to quality assurance. There were regular opportunities for people, relatives and staff to give feedback.
Rating at last inspection: Good (the last report was published on 12 July 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor this service and inspect in line with our re-inspection schedule for services rated good. For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.