Coriander Close

Updated 18 December 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 unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on the 20 November 2018. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

We asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). A PIR 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 took this information into account when we made the judgements in this report. We also reviewed the information we held about the service including notifications. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We used all this information to plan what areas we were going to focus on during our inspection visit.

During our inspection visit, we met the five people who live at the home. People living at Coriander Close have physical disabilities and a learning disability. Verbal communication is not their preferred method of communicating, so we spend time observing peoples care in the communal areas of the home. We used the used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection(SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand how people experience the support they are given.

During our inspection we spoke with the registered manager, three care staff, a visiting therapist, a health care work, a relative and a friend of one person. We reviewed one persons care plans and daily records to see how their care and treatment was planned and delivered. We looked at how medicines were managed by checking the Medicine Administration Record (MAR) charts. We checked whether staff were recruited safely, and trained to deliver care and support appropriate to each person's needs. We reviewed the results of the provider's quality monitoring system to see what actions were taken and planned to improve the quality of the service.

Updated 18 December 2018

This inspection took place on the 20 November 2018 and was unannounced. 8 Corainder Close is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. 8 Corainder Close is registered for five people with learning difficulties and physical disabilities. On the day of our inspection, five people were living at the service.

At the last inspection on 10 June 2016 the service was rated good. At this inspection the provider and registered manager had maintained this good rating. Historically the home has a sustained a history of compliance with legal requirements.

The home 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. People living at 8 Corainder Close could live a life as fully as they were able in a homely environment that had been created to meet their needs.

On the day of our inspection there was a registered manager in post who was available throughout the inspection. 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 was run.

People living at the service were protected from the risk of harm because the provider had processes in place to ensure their safety. Staff all knew and understood their responsibilities in relation to protecting people from abuse and had had received the training they needed to support their understanding of safeguarding adults. The registered manager had fulfilled their legal responsibilities and had reported any issues to the local safeguarding teams and CQC.

People were supported by enough well trained and competent staff who knew them extremely well. The registered manager followed robust recruitment checks to ensure that staff employed were suitable to support people using the service with all aspects of their care. People’s medication was managed safely and people were protected from the risk of infection.

People’s needs were assessed and there was clear guidance available for staff about how to meet people’s needs. This meant that staff could gain an excellent knowledge and understanding of an individual’s needs and how to provide effective support to people. Staff were supported with appropriate training for their roles.

Staff sought consent from people before caring for them and they clearly understood and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA). Where people were deprived of their liberty processes had been followed to ensure that this was done lawfully. Staff understood people’s unique communication styles and ensured that the views of people with communication difficulties were captured and acted upon.

The service was extremely person-centred and staff were passionate about caring for people. We saw that without exception people at the service and relatives were treated with kindness by a staff team that were committed to providing care to people who they considered to be like family members. Staff supported people with respect and dignity, and had developed some extremely positive relationships with people.

People received care that met their individual needs, people’s views and preferences were sought and staff made exceptional efforts to provide a service that empowered people to develop and live a life that they enjoyed.

Information about people’s care was provided in formats that were accessible to people so that they could understand. The registered manager provided strong and stable leadership and clear direction to the staff team. Staff felt supported and valued.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided. These systems were used to continue to drive improvements in the service and the care people received.