We carried out a review of the data available to us about Maurice Edelman House 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 Maurice Edelman House, you can give feedback on this service.
Maurice Edelman 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 care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 16 people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. Maurice Edelman House provides a service to people who live permanently in the home and also to people who use the respite care service. There were 10 people living at the home and three people using the respite service at the time of our visit.
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.
When we last inspected this service it was rated as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service continued to be rated as ‘Good’.
A requirement of the service’s registration is that they have 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection.
Staff had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and what actions to take if they had any concerns. Staff knew the risks to people's health and followed risk management plans to keep people safe without restricting them unnecessarily.
There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s individual needs and keep them safe. Checks were carried out prior to staff starting work to help the registered manager determine their suitability to work with people who used the service. Staff received an induction when they started at the service and completed ongoing training to support them in meeting people's needs effectively. People told us staff were friendly and caring and had the right skills to provide the care and support that they required.
A safe procedure for managing people’s medicines was in place and people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff understood the importance of maintaining good infection control procedures to maintain the cleanliness of the home and minimise the risk of the spread of infection.
The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) to ensure people were supported in a way that did not inappropriately restrict their freedom. They had sought the necessary authorisation from the relevant authority where there were restrictions to people's freedom that were deemed necessary to keep them safe; known as Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People were provided with a choice of meals which took into account their likes and dislikes and were encouraged to eat a varied diet that took into account their nutritional needs.
The management team ensured people accessed healthcare professionals when needed and records confirmed advice and care support required to maintain people’s health and wellbeing.
Each person had a care and support plan with detailed information and guidance personal to them to support staff in meeting people’s needs. Staff knew people’s abilities, support needs and preferred routines and encouraged people to make their own decisions. Staff were caring and patient towards people and we saw they were responsive to people’s needs. People had opportunities to engage in, and experience, different stimulating activities both inside and outside the home to support their mental, physical and emotional wellbeing. People were able to maintain personal relationships with people that were important to them.
The provider had quality monitoring systems to ensure people received care and services to the standards the provider expected. The managers regularly reviewed the care and support people received to help ensure any areas for improvement were identified and acted upon. Staff felt supported by the managers who were approachable and open to suggestions about the service people received.
The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 16 people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. Maurice Edelman House provides a service to people who live permanently in the home and to people who use the respite care service. There were 7 people living at the home and two people using the respite service at the time of our visit.
A requirement of the service’s registration is that they have 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection.
People received care from staff who had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and knew what actions to take if they had any concerns. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s individual needs and keep them safe. Identified risks were assessed and managed in a way that promoted people’s safety. There was a safe procedure for managing people’s medicines and people received their medicines as prescribed.
People told us staff were friendly and caring and had the right skills to provide the care and support they required. Staff received an induction when they started working for the service and completed training to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively. Staff were positive about the training and support they received. They told us it enabled them to meet the needs of people in the home.
The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) to ensure people were looked after in a way that did not inappropriately restrict their freedom. This included authorisation by the relevant authority for any restrictions to people's freedom that were deemed necessary to keep them safe; known as Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People were encouraged to eat a varied diet that took into account their preferences and any nutritional needs. People were supported effectively with their health needs and had access to a range of healthcare professionals.
There was a consistent staff team who knew people’s abilities, support needs, preferred routines and social preferences. People were relaxed with staff who took time to listen to them and understand their needs. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and treated them as individuals. People were able to maintain personal relationships with people that were important to them.
Each person had a care and support plan with detailed information and guidance personal to them. Care plans included information on maintaining the person's health, daily routines and their preferences. People were supported to take part in a variety of activities and hobbies and to maintain their interests.
The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided. The managers regularly reviewed the care and support people received and took action to continuously improve the service. Staff told us they felt supported by the managers who were approachable and open to suggestions about the service people received.
If you wish to look at our findings in detail please see the full report.
Is the service safe?
The environment was safe, clean and hygienic. People felt safe.
Staff were able to describe the different ways that people might experience abuse and the correct steps to take if they were concerned that abuse had taken place.
Is the service effective?
Each person had a care plan that detailed their care needs. There was a safe procedure for recruiting staff and for making sure they had the skills and knowledge to support people in this service. Staff had a good understanding of people's care and support needs and they knew people in the service well.
Is the service caring?
We saw that the staff demonstrated a great deal of patience when they were supporting people and gave people plenty of time to make their own decisions. One staff member told us, 'We do our best all the time.'
People confirmed to us that they were not rushed at all and our observations throughout the visit confirmed this.
Is the service responsive?
People's support needs were always assessed before they were admitted to the service. The service worked well with other agencies to ensure people were supported in the best possible way.
Is the service well-led?
Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and there were quality assurance processes in place. Staff were regularly supervised by senior staff.
All care records we viewed were accurate, current and complete. The service had a robust system in place to respond to complaints and concerns.
We found that where possible people had given their consent to the care and treatment to be provided. We saw that staff asked people about their choices. They understood people's communication and responded to what people wanted. We saw people had been involved in planning their own care and support and that diagrams and pictures had been used to enable people to express their wishes.
People told us they enjoyed living at the home. One person said "I like it here.' Another person put his thumb up and said 'good' when we asked if it was a nice place to live.
We found the home was clean and procedures were in place for minimising infections.
There was a safe procedure for recruiting staff and for making sure they had the skills and knowledge to support people who lived at Maurice Edelman House.
Records we viewed were accurate and up to date.
We saw that people expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. We saw that people communicated comfortably in their own style with support workers.
We saw that workers interacted constantly with people, seeking their views about how their day was run and helping them to make decisions. We saw that people moved around the house freely between their bedrooms and the communal rooms.
We observed that people looked relaxed and at ease with the staff throughout our visit. People we spoke with said that the staff were kind and helped them when they could not manage on their own. We observed staff interacting confidently with people showing patience and understanding and encouraging people to be independent. People we spoke with told us that they were happy with the support they received and with the staff that cared for them, saying 'I like the staff they help me if I need anything'.
We looked around the home and saw that the home was comfortably furnished. We saw that individual rooms were personalised with people's own pictures, photographs and personal pieces of furnishings.
People we spoke with said they knew who to speak to if they had any concerns. One person told us, 'I don't have any concerns I'm alright thanks'. Staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities to raise concerns and how to keep people safe from harm.
We saw that residents and their relatives were sent a questionnaire to ask if they were satisfied with the service.