We carried out a review of the data available to us about Royal Mencap Society - 25 Barossa Road on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Royal Mencap Society - 25 Barossa Road, you can give feedback on this service.
Royal Mencap Society - 25 Barossa Road is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care support to up to seven people living with learning disabilities and/or autism and other physical and health related support needs. At the time of our inspection seven people lived in the home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and their relatives told us they felt safe with staff and in their home. Staff knew people well and supported them to stay well. Staff knew what to do if people were at risk of avoidable harm, abuse or neglect. There were enough staff to support people.
People received personalised support which considered their wishes, preferences, interests and involved others important to them. People were supported to eat and drink well, to access healthcare services when needed and to have their medicines safely as prescribed. Staff knew how to communicate with people effectively.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people.
The service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of Right support, right care, right culture.
Right support: Model of care and setting maximises people’s choice, control and Independence;
People told us they chose to live in the home and we saw staff supported people to be as independent as possible and respected their choices.
Right care: Care is person-centred and promotes people’s dignity, privacy and human rights;
People were spoken with in a caring, kind and respectful way and given opportunities to express their views and to make their own choices. People had their privacy when they wanted to and staff supported them in a non-intrusive way. People were in control of their home and their lifestyle.
Right culture: Ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of leaders and care staff ensure people using services lead confident, inclusive and empowered lives
Staff spoke about people and their team members in a positive and appreciative way. Staff felt supported by the management. People told us it was a nice place to live in and they liked staff.
The provider made sure staff carried out quality and safety checks in the home, so people were safe. The assistant manager had a good oversight of the support people received and ensured people accessed other health and social care services when needed. Improvements to the support and home environment were made based on people’s feedback and provider checks.
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 12 March 2020).
Why we inspected
We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Royal Mencap – 25 Barossa Road is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to seven people with a learning disability, such as autism. At the time of our inspection, six people were living at the service.
The care home’s premises were an adapted house in a residential road. 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
People were cared for by staff who had developed a good culture and promoted independence. People told us staff were kind and caring to them and showed them respected.
People enjoyed living at the service and had good relationships with their housemates and staff. They told us they went to activities of their liking and carried out daily living tasks within their home, such as cooking and the laundry.
People were supported to take their medicines and staff were knowledgeable in how to keep people safe from harm or the risk of abuse.
People lived in an environment which had a good standard of cleanliness and was appropriate for their needs. People said they could make their own decisions about their care and there was evidence they were involved in their support plan reviews.
People were involved in the running of the service. They chose the meals they ate, how they liked to spend their time and gave their feedback where they felt improvements could be made. Staff listened to people and made changes and worked with external agencies for the benefit of people.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The registered manager led the service well and supported staff. They looked for ways to improve people’s lives and audited the service regularly to ensure their regulatory requirements of registration were met.
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 (report published 26 October 2017). We found at this inspection, the service had retained this Good rating.
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.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. There was one breach of Regulation 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection, the provider had made improvements to meet the requirements of the regulation.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated Good.
Risks to people were assessed with effective plans implemented to manage them. Staff understood how to safeguarding people form abuse and responded appropriately where incidents occurred. The provider carried out checks to ensure people were supported by suitable staff. Staff were deployed in a way that meant people’s needs were responded to safely. Checks were carried out to ensure the environment was safe and there were plans to follow in the event of an emergency. People’s medicines were managed and administered safely by trained staff.
People are 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 cared for by trained staff who had regular meetings with their supervisors. People’s nutritional needs were met and staff supported them to access the healthcare that they needed.
Staff knew people well and involved people in their care. People’s independence was encouraged by staff who helped to create an inclusive environment for people. Staff promoted people’s privacy and dignity when providing care to them. People were supported to maintain important family relationships.
People received care that was personalised and reflected their needs and interests. People’s needs were reviewed regularly. Staff supported people to identify activities and interests that they enjoyed. A complaints procedure was in place and people knew how to use it.
People and staff had access to management. Staff felt supported by their manager and were involved in the running of the service. People and relatives were regularly asked their views and involve d in decisions through meetings. The provider carried out regular audits to ensure people received care of a good quality. The provider maintained accurate and up to date records.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
This inspection was carried out on the 4 and 5 November 2015 and was unannounced. Royal Mencap Society – 25 Barossa Road provides accommodation and personal care for up to seven adults with learning disabilities. On the day of our visit five people lived at the service.
On the first day of the inspection the registered manager was on leave however they did support us on the 5 November 2015. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 regional manager supported us on the first day of the inspection.
People’s human rights could be affected because the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) were not always followed. There was not enough evidence of mental capacity assessments specific to particular decisions that needed to be made.
People’s needs were met safely because there were enough staff at the service. Accidents and incidents with people were recorded on the service computer with a written copy kept in a file. Staff had knowledge of safeguarding adult’s procedures and what to do if they suspected any type of abuse. Staff had undergone recruitment checks before they started work.
People’s medicines were administered and stored safely. Risks had been assessed and managed appropriately to keep people safe which included the environment. The risk assessments for people were detailed and informative and included measures that had been introduced to reduce the risk of harm. In the event of an emergency, such as the building being flooded or a fire, there was a service contingency plan which detailed what staff needed to do to protect people and make them safe.
People were supported by staff that were knowledgeable and supported in their role. Staff had received all the appropriate training for their role and their competencies were regularly assessed.
People told us that they enjoyed the meals at the service. People at risk of dehydration or malnutrition had effective systems in place to support them. People had access to a range of health care professionals, such as the GP and diabetic nurse.
People told us that the staff were caring. Comments included, “Staff are very nice, this is a nice home” and, “Staff are nice to me, my bedroom is nice too” and, “I like living here, I’m happy.” We saw that staff were caring and respectful to people.
People told us they were involved in planning their care. We saw that care plans had detail around people’s backgrounds and personal history and included people’s views on what they wanted. Staff knew and understood what was important to the person and supported them to maintain their interests.
People were supported by staff that were given appropriate information to enable them to respond to people effectively. Where it had been identified that a person’s needs had changed staff were providing the most up to date care. People were able to take part in activities which they enjoyed. One person told us that they were always busy.
People told us that they knew what to do if they were unhappy about something. There was a complaints procedure in place for people to access if they needed to and this was in a pictorial format for people to understand. We saw that complaints were investigated appropriately.
Staff said that they felt supported, valued and listened to. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service that people received. This included audits, surveys and meetings with people and staff.
During the inspection we found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
When we inspected this service in 2011 we found the provider was in breach of Regulation 24 because there was no registered manager employed at that time. We had inspected the service since 2011 in both 2012 and 2013. During those inspections we did not reflect in our report that a manager had been employed and registered with the commission. The manager currently in day to day control of the service was registered with the commission in June 2014. Therefore, the provider is no longer in breach of this Regulation.
People told us that they and their relatives had been involved in planning and reviewing the support that they received. We found that reviews included a pictorial report on activities and any achievements. The person in charge told us, "We do our best to make sure that people lead happy and fulfilling lives in the community'.
We found that people were provided with opportunities to pursue interests and hobbies at the service and in the community. People spoke enthusiastically about their activities.
We found that the premises were suitable in design and layout for the purpose. The service appeared clean and comfortable and was well maintained. This meant that the building and garden provided a safe environment for the people who used the service and staff.
We found that staff were adequately trained to enable them to perform their role and that their professional development was supported.
Effective systems for monitoring the performance of the service were in place and we saw evidence that changes were made in response. The person in charge said, " Mencap analyses the information contained in the reports we send and provides guidance on how to prevent repeats or reduce risk'
In our recent inspection we found that staff numbers had increased with the return of a care worker from long term leave. As a result an improvement in the individual support provided to people who used the service had been noted. Time had been made available for people to spend on activities or outings of their choosing on a one to one basis with a selected member of staff. One person told us, 'We went to the garden centre and had coffee. Then we looked around all the departments'. A member of staff told us they felt that this had been beneficial for all of the people who used the service.
We found that staff training had been enhanced to meet changing needs within the service and to ensure the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and staff.
We did speak with a relative who told us that people were specifically included in the support planning and delivery process. Also that it was tailored to meet the needs of the individual. We saw evidence to confirm this.
A relative also told us they believed that people felt happy, safe and secure in the service and that it provided a wide range of activities which reflected the choices made by people. These included annual holidays, theatre trips and parties.
The manager told us that the management of important areas of the service are supported by the Mencap Continuous Compliance Tool (CCT). This was demonstrated to us and we saw that the manager was given warning of issues that could affect the compliance of the service. This included staff training, fire safety and electrical appliance testing.
We noted that seven staff were shown on the duty rota. We were told that four of these were full time and the others were relief bank staff. We saw that four staff were rostered to work shifts in the week commencing 1 October 2012. This meant that other than day shift cover, care staff were working alone in the service. This had potential to impact on the health, safety and welfare of people using the service. The absence of an emergency support plan for the lone care worker was a concern and we did not consider staffing levels to be adequate.