Archived: Romanby Crescent

Updated 11 March 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 3 March 2021 and was announced.

Updated 11 March 2021

The inspection took place on 17 January 2018. The inspection was announced. We gave the service 24 hours notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service for younger adults who are often out during the day. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

Sanctuary Home Care limited provide care and support to one person living in Romanby Court that is a supported living scheme that contains several flats for people who live independently with minimal support. A ‘supported living’ setting is where people can live as independently as possible. The care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at one person’s personal care and support who was using the service.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 visited one person in their own home and the atmosphere was very homely, warm and welcoming. The person who used the service was relaxed in their own home and had a very good rapport with their support staff.

The person was supported to maintain their independence on a daily basis with daily living skills and with personal care where appropriate. They had choice and control over their own life from being supported by person centred care approaches. Person centred care is when the person is central to their support and their preferences are respected.

The person was supported to forward plan and also supported to achieve personal goals. They used a tool called an ‘outcome star’ chart that was used to measure progress made towards reaching their goals.

The person was always respected by staff and treated with kindness. We saw staff being respectful, considerate and communicating exceptionally well with the person.

The person’s support plans were in an easy read format and were person centred. They included a ‘one page profile’ that referenced the person’s history, preferences and described their individual support needs. These were regularly reviewed.

The person was supported to play an active role within their local community by making regular use of local resources including the local shops, pubs and cinemas.

The service provided a communal activity room for the person to access and this was a popular resource.

The service supported the person to access multicultural activities provided in the communal resource that were educational and valued.

We saw that the person was supported to take part in interesting and meaningful activities of their choice. They took part in leisure and social events and staff were constantly looking for more opportunities for the person’s to enjoy.

Support plans contained person centred risk assessments. These identified risks and described the measures to be taken to ensure the person would be protected from the risk of harm. This supported the person to do the things they wanted to live their life fully.

The person was supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare professionals and services. The person was supported and encouraged to have regular health checks and were always accompanied by staff to hospital appointments and emergencies.

Staff understood safeguarding issues and procedures were in place to minimise the risk of abuse occurring. Where concerns had been raised we saw they had been referred to the relevant safeguarding department for investigation. Robust recruitment processes were in place.

Staff were all trained in equality and diversity and knew how to protect the person from discrimination and also how to exercise their rights. The person had access to advocacy services if required.

Where the person lacked the mental capacity to make decisions about aspects of their care, staff were guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act to make decisions in the person’s best interests. Where this was required mental capacity assessments and ‘best interests’ decisions had been completed. Records of ‘best interests’ decisions showed involvement from the person’s family and social worker.

We saw the person was encouraged to prepare meals, eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. The service was truly reflective of what the person liked and the person was in control of this and chose what they would like to eat.

Infection control measures were in place for staff to protect the person’s from the risk of infection through cleanliness and protective clothing where required.

Support staff told us they felt supported to carry out their role and to develop further and that the registered manager was supportive and always approachable.

Staff were trained in a wide range of areas required to support the person and they were also able to maintain and develop their skills through further training and development.

The person was supported by enough staff to meet their needs and individually with one to one support.

Medicines were stored, managed and administered safely. We looked at how records were kept and spoke with the registered manager about how senior staff were trained to administer medicines and how this was monitored.

We found an effective quality assurance survey took place regularly and we looked at the results. The service delivered had been regularly reviewed through a range of internal audits.

We found the person who used the service and their representatives were regularly asked for their views about the support and service they received at review meetings and coffee mornings.

The person and their relatives were able to complain if they wished and were knowledgeable of how to complain or raise minor concerns.

The registered manager had informed CQC of significant events in a timely way by submitting the required notifications. This meant we could check that appropriate action had been taken.