Archived: Serlby Close

Updated 2 March 2016

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 January 2016 and was announced to ensure that the

people who used the service would be present. The inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector. We were assisted by the manager of the service as the registered manager had to attend a meeting at head office.

The eight people who lived at Serlby Close had complex needs and were not always able to verbally communicate what they thought about the home and staff. This meant that they could not tell us about their experience of living at the home. We spoke to four relatives of people using the service to gain their views of the service.

We reviewed other information we held about the home, including any statutory notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents that the provider is legally obliged to send us within the required timescale.

Before the inspection, we also contacted the commissioners of the relevant local authorities, the local authority safeguarding team and Healthwatch to gain their views of the service provided. Healthwatch England is the national consumer champion in health and care.

During the inspection we observed staff interacting with people and looked round the home. We reviewed two care plans and four medicine administration records (MARs) for people who used the service. We examined records including supervision and training records and various records about how the service was managed. We also consulted with the provider’s head office to verify staff recruitment records. We spoke to the registered manager, the manager and four support workers.

Updated 2 March 2016

This inspection took place on 26 January 2016. The inspection was announced to ensure people who used the service would be present.

Serlby Close is an eight bedroomed, purpose built detached property located in Washington. The service provides accommodation and care for up to eight people who have learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders. At the time of the visit eight people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

The people who lived at Serlby Close had complex needs which meant they were unable to tell us about their experience of the service. We spoke to relatives of people who lived at the home to gain their views. Relatives we spoke with expressed positive comments about the service their relatives received and praised the work of the manager and staff.

Relatives and staff we spoke with told us that there were enough staff on duty. During our inspection we observed sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Where risks were identified they were assessed and managed to minimise the risk to people who used the service and others.

Staff were able to describe the signs of potential abuse. Staff we spoke to had a clear understanding of what actions to take if they had concerns about a person’s safety or treatment.

The provider had a robust recruitment procedure in place which included ensuring appropriate checks were undertaken before staff started work.

Medicines records we viewed were up to date and accurate. This included records for the receipt, return, administration and disposal of medicines.

The provider carried out regular health and safety checks included checks of gas safety, electrical safety, electrical appliances, fire safety and water safety.

Staff understood and applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), and were aware of people’s rights when they could not consent themselves. We saw staff support people to make choices and decisions.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. We saw that each individual’s preference was catered for and people were supported to manage their weight.

Staff had completed mandatory training required to perform their role. We noted all training was up to date as were supervisions and appraisals.

The provider had a personal emergency evacuation procedure in place which detailed action to be taken in the event of an emergency.

The service worked with external professionals to support and maintain people’s health. We saw evidence in care plans of cooperation between care staff and healthcare professionals including, occupational therapists, podiatrists and GPs.

People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff had a sound knowledge of the people they supported. We saw staff were caring and compassionate when supporting people.

Staff were aware of a person’s preferred method of communication.

People were involved in a wide range of activities including bowling, ice-skating, going to the pub and shopping. Staff supported people to maintain family relationships and links with the local community.

Where people had no family or personal representative we saw the service assisted people to obtain support from an advocacy service.

Care plans were detailed and reflected people’s individual needs. Reviews were regularly completed and included input from the person and their family.

We observed staff were supportive of each other. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home and they felt supported by the manager and registered manager.

The manager had a comprehensive system to audit various aspects of the running of the service. These included checks of the medication systems, audits of care plans and people’s funds.

Feedback was sought from people, relatives and staff in order to monitor and improve standards. We saw team meetings were held monthly to discuss issues within the service.