Archived: Salisbury Road

Updated 28 February 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. We wanted to check that the provider had made improvements on the breach identified at the previous inspection.

This inspection took place on 13, 17 and 28 November 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the location was a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in. One inspector carried out this inspection.

The provider registered for this care service changed from Autism London to MCCH on 21 November 2016. This was the first inspection since the change in registration. We usually ask providers to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) annually. 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. At the time of this inspection the provider had not been asked to complete a PIR because they had not been registered for the service for a year. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

Before the inspection, we looked at the evidence we already held about the service including notifications the provider had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We also contacted the local authority to obtain their views about the service.

During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager and three care staff. We also spoke with two people who used the service and one relative. We observed care and support in communal areas and used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We reviewed two people’s care records including risk assessments and care plans and six staff records including recruitment, training and supervision. We also looked at records relating to how the service was managed including medicines, policies and procedures and quality assurance documentation. After the inspection, we spoke with two more relatives.

Updated 28 February 2018

This inspection took place on 13, 17 and 28 November 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the location was a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in. One inspector carried out this inspection.

Salisbury Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or 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 the inspection.

Salisbury Road accommodates six adults with learning disabilities and autism in a two storey building. 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 registered manager. 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 and their relatives felt the service was safe. There were enough staff on duty employed through a safe recruitment process to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Staff knew the procedures for reporting safeguarding concerns and whistleblowing. People had risk assessments and risk management plans to enable them to receive safe care. Building safety checks were conducted to keep people and visitors safe. People received their medicines correctly and as prescribed. The provider ensured infection control measures were in place to protect people from the spread of infection.

The provider carried out care needs assessments before a person began using the service to ensure their care needs could be met and to inform the care planning process. The provider was aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and staff were knowledgeable about how to obtain consent.

Staff received support through training and new appointed staff received an induction. People were supported in a sensitive manner when they encountered discrimination whilst out in the community. Staff were also supported through regular supervisions and appraisals. People participated in the weekly menu planning and were supported to eat a nutritionally balanced diet. The service had effective systems in place for joint working with health and social care professionals. People also had access to healthcare support when needed.

People and relatives thought staff were kind and caring. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s care needs and how to develop a caring relationship with people when they first began to use the service. Relatives gave positive feedback about communication from staff about their family member. Staff told us people and their relatives were involved in decision-making. Staff were aware of the processes to follow to support people with their relationship needs whilst keeping them safe. People’s privacy, dignity and independence was supported and promoted.

Staff were knowledgeable about how to provide a personalised care service. Care records were detailed, containing people’s care preferences. Records also contained information on people’s communication needs. People had access to a range of indoor and outdoor activities. The provider had a complaints process and relatives knew how to make a complaint. People had end of life care plans which took into account the views of their representatives.

Staff and relatives spoke positively about the management of the service. The provider had systems in place to obtain feedback from people who used the service and their representatives in order to improve the service. People who used the service had regular meetings. Staff also had regular meetings to keep them informed on service development and to update them on training topics. The provider carried out regular quality checks to ensure any identified issues could be resolved.