Archived: Ambito Care

Updated 9 July 2016

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.

This inspection took place on 14 June 2016. The inspection was unannounced which meant the provider did not know we were coming. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included asking the Local Authority for information. We also looked at notifications we had received from the registered provider. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

On the day of our inspection we spoke with the manager, four care workers and a social work student who was on placement at the service. Due to the complex care needs and unique communication style of people who lived at Meade Close we were unable to ascertain their views about the care they received verbally. We therefore carried out observations in relation to the care people received and the way staff interacted with people to ascertain if they were happy.

We looked around the building including in bedrooms, the bathroom and communal areas. We also spent time looking at records, which included four people’s care records and records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 9 July 2016

We inspected Meade Close on 14 June 2016. Our last inspection took place January 2014. At that time we found the service met the standards we inspected against.

Meade Close is registered to provide care and support for eight people with physical and learning disabilities. There is a parking area to the front of the building and an enclosed garden to the rear. The accommodation comprises of two bungalows which are single storey and are light and spacious. All of the bedrooms are single and each has a sink. There is a communal kitchen and dining area, a lounge area and a shared bathroom in both bungalows.

The registered manager had left the service in January 2016 and there was a new manager in post who had applied for registration with the Commission. 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.

Relatives told us that the staff team was very stable, which they said they felt was very important for the people who lived at the home as well as for them.

We found there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff told us they felt supported by the manager and that training opportunities were good. Relatives we spoke with told us they liked the staff and had confidence in them.

We found the service was meeting the legal requirements relating to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Due to our lack of ability to interpret the communication styles of some of the people who lived at the service we carried out a number of observations, spoke to relatives and staff and checked information held about people to ascertain if they were happy. Relatives told us that they felt their family members were safe and well cared for. We saw that staff understood how to keep people safe, knew people well and we saw people were relaxed and happy in their environment.

Staff at the home knew what the people who lived there liked and disliked. We saw that there was a relaxed atmosphere at meal times and people were offered choices about what they wanted to eat.

Activities were planned for each of the people who lived at Meade Close based upon their personal preferences. Days out, trips to the shops and other activities were recorded in a diary. People were given options about where to spend their time, for example in the lounge, in their bedroom or in the kitchen/dining area. There was also a large garden which was accessible to the people who lived at the home.

We saw that there were detailed risk assessments and care plans in place for each of the people that lived at the home. These incorporated personal preferences, people’s life history and important information on how each person liked to communicate.

Relatives told us they were always made to feel welcome and could visit whenever they liked. They also said that if they had any concerns or complaints they would feel able to raise them with the manager.

We saw there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Staff supported the people using the service to input into the running of the home and relatives could feed back their views at house meetings and during care planning meetings.