Background to this inspection
Updated
13 March 2020
The inspection
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team
The inspection was completed by an inspector and an inspection manager.
Service and service type
26 Brookside avenue 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 this inspection.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection
We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because the service is small and people are often out and we wanted to be sure there would be people at home to speak with us
What we did before the inspection
The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.
The provider is legally required to notify us of significant events that have occurred at the service. We reviewed this information that the provider had sent. We also asked the Local Authority for feedback on the service. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.
During the inspection
We spoke with one person who used the service and two relatives about their experience of the care provided. Due to people's communication needs their feedback about aspects of the service was limited in parts. We used observation to help us understand people's experience of the care and support they received.
We spoke with five members of staff. This included three care staff, the deputy manager and registered manager. We reviewed a range of records. This included two people’s care and medicine records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.
Updated
13 March 2020
About the service
26 Brookside Avenue provides accommodation for up to three people who require support with personal care. The service specializes in care for younger people with learning difficulties and autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection two people were using the service. The registered manager told us that they do not intend to support three people in the future as the building is too small
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We identified a few concerns about the recording and storage of medicines. We were informed these would be resolved promptly. People and relatives felt the service was safe. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns if they had any.
We observed staff were well trained and also had sufficient care plan guidance in place to ensure that they were supporting people safely and effectively. The service was clean.
There were enough staff and staff were safely recruited. If needed, referrals were made to other professionals. Professional advice was documented and followed. Professionals had also provided some training for staff.
Staff had good knowledge of people’s needs. We observed positive caring interactions between people and staff. Relatives reported that the service was caring.
The service was small and followed the principles of ‘registering the right support’. Where the service was situated, allowed people access to the countryside and public transport if people wanted to visit other areas. We observed people were supported to engage in activities of their choosing and live independent lives.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Whilst neither of the people using the service were at the end of their life; the service had explored their wishes. This meant that in the event of a sudden death, their preferences would be followed.
There was a clear governance process to ensure that records were audited at the service. The provider oversaw the registered managers work to ensure that the management team was effective. Staff spoke highly of the registered manager and felt the service was managed well.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 2 August 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.