ABI Homes - Oxley Park

On the day of our inspection 2 people were using the service.

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.

At our last inspection in June 2016 we rated the service ‘good.’ At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of ‘good’. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Staff had a good understanding of abuse and the safeguarding procedures that should be followed to report abuse and incidents of concern. Risk assessments were in place to manage potential risks within people’s lives, whilst also promoting their independence.

The staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure only suitable staff worked at the service. Adequate staffing levels were in place. We saw that staffing support matched the level of assessed needs within the service during our inspection.

Staff induction training and on-going training was provided to ensure they had the skills, knowledge and support they needed to perform their roles. Specialist training was provided to make sure that people’s needs were met and they were supported effectively.

Staff were well supported by the registered manager and senior team, and had regular one to one

supervisions. The staff we spoke with were all positive about the senior staff and management in place, and were happy with the support they received.

People's consent was gained before any care was provided. People told us that staff always checked with them before providing care.

Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know them and their specific needs and wishes. Care plans reflected people’s likes and dislikes, and we saw that staff spoke with people in a friendly manner.

People were involved in their own care planning and could contribute to the way in which they were supported. People and their family were involved in reviewing their care and making any necessary changes.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service as and when it developed and had a process in place which ensured people could raise any complaints or concerns. Concerns were acted upon promptly and lessons were learned through positive communication.

The service notified the Care Quality Commission of certain events and incidents, as required.

This inspection took place on 28 June 2016 and was announced. We received information from the person who used the service 05 July 2016 and spoke with a relative 15 July 2016.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

ABI-Homes Oxley Park provides residential care and support for two adults with learning disabilities. On the day of our inspection one person was using the service.

There was a registered manger in post. 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 felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and how to report them.

The person had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be, whilst keeping safe. There were environmental risk assessments in place to keep staff and visitors safe.

There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support the person with their needs.

Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service to ensure staff employed were suitable for the role.

Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the person who used the service.

Staff received a comprehensive induction process and on-going training. They were well supported by the registered manager and had regular one to one time for supervisions. Staff had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people.

Staff gained consent before supporting people. People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were very knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people.

The person was able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required to encourage a healthy and balanced diet.

The person was supported to access a variety of health professional when required, including dentist, opticians and doctors.

Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the person who used the service well. The person and relatives where appropriate, were involved in the planning and reviews of their care and support.

The person’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.

The person was supported to follow their interests and join in activities of their choice.

A complaints procedure was in place and accessible to all. People knew how to complain.

Effective quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with dignity and respect by the staff. We spoke with one person who used the service, who told us that they 'felt safe and liked the staff'.

Care plans and risk assessments were in place which identified any specific risks for people who used the service and the actions staff should take to minimise the risk. Staff were knowledgeable about the needs and risks for each person and the individual support they needed.

Staff received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults. This helped to make sure that staff were aware of their responsibilities for safeguarding people who used the service.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and plans of care developed according to their needs. Information about people's needs and wishes was clearly identified in care plans which helped ensure that new staff were able to provide appropriate care.

When we spoke with staff, we concluded that they had a good knowledge of each person's care needs and preferences. Staff were able to tell us about the support people needed, and how they delivered their care. One person who used the service told us about the support they received from staff to increase their level of independence. We saw that a member of staff had supported them to choose, prepare and cook a meal.

Is the service caring?

We saw that staff were calm and organised and approached people in a caring manner. We saw that people who used the service were relaxed in the presence of staff and responded positively to them. One person who used the service confirmed that they had no concerns about how any of the staff treated them.

We found that senior staff within the organisation also understood the needs of people who used the service and responded in a caring manner. For example, the area manager came to reassure people who used the service about the unannounced inspection.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that staff were responsive to people's needs. Care plans and risk assessments showed that staff had responded to people's requests for support to increase their independent living skills. We saw that people's daily routines and support showed that staff had responded to individual needs and preferences. For example one person preferred to use the arranged transport to and from the day centre, while another preferred to use public transport.

Is the service well-led?

We found that the service was well managed. The registered manager also manages another three small homes and divides their time between the services. We found that in addition to the registered manager, other senior staff including the area manager were available to support staff and people who used the service. This meant that management support was available as and when needed.

Effective systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of care. Regular checks on all aspects of the service were carried out by an area manager and where necessary improvements made.

We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect and that staff provided information in a way that best met people's needs and helped them to safely plan their daily routines.

We spoke with members of staff that were very knowledgeable about people's requirements.

We found that care records were up to date and had included relevant information to meet people's needs.

We saw that there was a good system in place for the management of medicines, and we found that people's records were kept securely and disposed of appropriately when required.

We spoke one staff member who worked at the service. They told us that "We provide a service user specific service that is tailored to meet individual's needs".

We found that people's needs were assessed and care and support plans were put in place to ensure that their needs were met. We saw that risks were assessed and control measures put in place to ensure that risks were reduced.

We saw that staff had attended appropriate training and received regular supervision and annual appraisals. We found that there was a detailed complaints policy in place and that people were made aware of it.

However, we had concerns about the management of medication as records did not always match the amount of medication in stock.