55 Sandwich Road

Updated 6 January 2018

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 took place on 26 October 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the service is a small care home for adults who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in and that people were prepared for our visit. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

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. Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service, we looked at the PIR, the previous inspection reports and any notifications received by the Care Quality Commission. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

We spoke with the registered manager and three members of staff. We looked at two people’s care plans and the associated risk assessments and guidance. We looked at a range of other records including four staff recruitment files, the staff induction records, training and supervision schedules, staff rotas and quality assurance surveys and audits.

During our inspection we spent time with the people living at the service. We observed how people were supported and the activities they were engaged in. Some people were unable to tell us about their experience of the service so we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We received feedback from one healthcare professional.

We last inspected 55 Sandwich Road on 12 October 2015 and it was rated ‘Good’ overall.

Updated 6 January 2018

Care service description

55 Sandwich Road is a residential care home for two people with learning disabilities.

Rating at last inspection

At the last inspection on 12 October 2015, the service was rated Good.

Rating at this inspection

At this inspection of 26 October 2017 we found the service was rated Good and was now Outstanding in Responsive.

Why the service is rated Good.

The service was well-led. The registered manager was passionate and knowledgeable about working with people with complex needs and their vision of an excellent service where people lived their life to the full was shared by the entire staff team. At our previous inspection the registered manager had only been in post for two months. Since then they had installed within the staff team a person centred focus. People were doing things they had never done before as a result. People had lived in residential services for many years, so it was especially impressive they were learning to do new things later on in life. People were supported to cook and clean and have ownership over where they lived. Staff told us that the registered manager’s passion and knowledge had inspired them to provide the best possible care.

The registered manager had implemented a range of checks and audits to ensure they had excellent oversight of the service. They had developed a new system of recording what people did each day, allowing staff to better map what people’s skills were and how they could support them to do learn new things. Staff gave consistent support to people, day in and day out, giving people the time to learn new skills and the confidence to put these into practice.

Staff were kind and caring and passionate about providing the best possible support to people. Staff made sure that people had a ‘good day’ every day. People had been supported to build their confidence and make decisions about their lives.

Staff knew people well and gave people the support they needed to communicate. People required support to make their needs known. As such, any changes in people’s support, such as their behaviour, weight or sleeping pattern was documented and staff looked at reasons why this may be occurring. This in depth analysis ensured staff knew how people were feeling and if they were happy with the service provided. Staff had picked up on subtle changes to people’s mental health and they had received timely and appropriate support as a result. There had been no complaints since our last inspection.

There was detailed guidance in place for staff, which helped to ensure people received consistent support. This had led to improved outcomes for people and they were happier and more settled, and no longer required staff to physically intervene when they became distressed or anxious. Any risks relating to people’s care and support had been assessed and action had been taken to minimise the risks from occurring.

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. People chose what they wanted to eat and were involved in all aspects of shopping for, preparing and serving meals.

There had been no safeguarding concerns since our last inspection, although staff told us they knew how to recognise and respond to abuse. The registered manager regularly liaised with health and social care professionals regarding people’s care and support, taking advice when necessary on any issues that had occurred.

There was always enough staff to make sure people had the support they needed and to support people to activities and events. Staff told us they felt well supported by the registered manager and received regular supervisions and appraisals. They had received training in topics relating to people’s individual needs, such as positive behaviour support. They told us their practice had improved as a result and they were more knowledgeable about people’s healthcare needs. People led active lives and were healthy and well. They received their medicines safely.

Staff were recruited safely. The Care Quality Commission had been notified of important events within the service, as required by law.