We inspected the service on 20 May 2016 and the visit was unannounced. Waring Close consists of one house and two bungalows, purpose built to provide person centred support for up to 16 people with learning disabilities who may also have autism.
The service had a registered manager in place although they were currently away from work. It is a requirement that the service has a registered manager. 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. The area manager was providing support to the staff in the absence of the registered manager.
Relatives felt that their family members were safe. Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe and knew how to respond to accidents, incidents and concerns they may have had about abuse. The provider had made sure that people were being protected from avoidable harm, for example, by regularly checking equipment and having plans in place to support people with their behaviour that could challenge.
People’s support needs had been considered to keep them safe during an emergency. The provider had a plan in place to make sure that the service would continue in the event of a significant event such as a fire.
People were being supported by staff who had been checked before they had started to work for the provider. This had helped the provider to make safer recruitment decisions. Relatives and staff felt there were enough staff available to support people to keep safe and we found this to be the case during our visit.
People received support to take their prescribed medicines. Staff had received training and support on how to handle medicines safely. People’s medicines were not always stored securely. We found that people's cabinets were not always locked. We also found that staff had not always signed when they had administered people’s medicines. We were given assurances after out visit that all medicines cabinets were now locked and that an audit was being carried out of people's medicines.
People received support from staff that had undertaken training. The provider had plans in place to address any gaps in the required training. For example, some staff required training to support people when they became anxious. The area manager told us that this training would be attended by all staff within the next six months.
Staff had received guidance in order to provide effective support to people. For example, they had received an induction and attended regular meetings with their supervisor to discuss and gain feedback on their work.
People were being supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Where people were able to express their own choices this was being encouraged. The provider had undertaken assessments where people may have lacked the capacity to make decisions for themselves. We found that staff knew about the MCA and could describe how to protect people’s rights. Advocacy support was being provided where people required this to make important decisions.
People were being supported to remain healthy and had access to healthcare professionals. For example, we saw that people had seen their GP when they had become unwell. We also saw that people were being supported to eat and drink based on their preferences. Where there were concerns about a person’s well-being, staff knew what to do and took the appropriate action.
People were receiving support by staff who showed kindness. Their privacy and dignity was being respected and their care records were being handled and stored safely. People were being supported to maintain relationships that were important to them.
Staff knew about people’s preferences and things that mattered to them. People were being supported to be independent. For example, people were being supported to undertake daily living tasks such as grocery shopping. This meant that people received support based on their preferences and abilities.
Staff knew about people’s communication needs and altered their approach to each person they were supporting. For example, staff used objects to help people to understand what was happening.
People or their representatives had been involved and had contributed to the planning and reviewing of their care and support. Staff updated each other regularly about people’s support needs so that they were able to be responsive to their needs.
People had support plans that were focused on them as individuals and were known by staff. For example, staff knew about the interests and hobbies of people. People were taking part in leisure activities of their choosing and staff had recorded their responses to these to make sure they were offering the right opportunities.
Staff knew when people were unhappy with their care and support because the signs of this had been detailed in people’s support plans. Relatives knew how to make a complaint and the provider had taken the necessary action when they had received one.
Relatives and staff thought that the service was well-led. There were opportunities for them to give ideas for improvement to the provider. For example, questionnaires had been issued to relatives in the last 12 months and actions had been taken as a response.
Staff told us that they were supported and we saw that the provider had processes in place to make sure that this occurred. Staff understood their responsibilities including reporting the poor practice of their colleagues should they have needed to.
The front line leader and area manager were aware of the requirements of their roles in the absence of the registered manager. They had undertaken quality checks of the service in order to offer high quality care and support to people. The checking of medicines had not occurred recently and the provider gave us assurances that this would restart.