California House

Updated 28 November 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.

Inspection site visit activity took place on 29 October 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location was a small respite service, and people and staff were often out during the day. The inspection included a visit to the service to speak with the registered manager and staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures. On 30 October 2018, we contacted family members by telephone to obtain feedback about the service. One adult social care inspector carried out the inspection.

We spoke with one person who used the service. Some of the people had complex needs which limited their verbal communication. This meant they could not always tell us their views of the service so we spoke with five of their family members. In addition to the registered manager, we also spoke with service manager, two care staff and a social care professional. We looked at the care records of three people and the personnel files of three members of staff.

Before we visited the service we checked the information we held about this location and the service provider, for example, inspection history, statutory notifications and complaints. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to the Commission by law. We contacted professionals involved in caring for people who used the service, including commissioners and safeguarding staff. We also contacted Healthwatch. Healthwatch is the local consumer champion for health and social care services. They give consumers a voice by collecting their views, concerns and compliments through their engagement work. Information provided by these professionals was used to inform the inspection.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This 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.

Updated 28 November 2018

This inspection took place on 29 and 30 October 2018 and was announced. This was to ensure someone would be available to meet with us and show us records.

California House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

California House provides respite care for up to five people who have a learning disability in one adapted building. 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. There was one person using the service at the time of our visit.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and risk assessments were in place. The registered manager understood their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding and staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe administration of medicines.

Recent refurbishment work had been carried out at the home. The home was clean, spacious and suitable for the people who used the service. Appropriate health and safety checks had been carried out.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant vetting checks when they employed staff. We have made a recommendation that the registered manager formally records what proof of identification has been checked when recruiting new staff.

Staff were suitably trained and received regular supervisions and appraisals.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition and staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs. Care records contained evidence of people being supported during visits to and from external health care specialists.

People who used the service and family members were complimentary about the standard of care at California House.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service and support plans were written in a person-centred way. Person-centred means ensuring the person is at the centre of any care or support and their individual wishes, needs and choices are taken into account.

Activities were arranged for people who used the service based on their likes and interests and to help meet their social needs.

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place and people who used the service and family members were aware of how to make a complaint.

The provider had an effective quality assurance process in place. Staff said they felt supported by the management team. People who used the service, family members and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of the service via meetings and surveys.