Archived: Ambito Care

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.

The provider had supplied us with an action plan which outlined the improvements they were going to make and told us all support plans had been reviewed and updated. We found the support plans had been improved, were clearly labelled, up to date, person centred with the appropriate consent forms in place for medication and finances.

On our last inspection in November we found the records kept about individuals were out of date, incomplete and badly organised. On this visit we found the files to be well presented, clear, concise and accurate.

The staff we spoke with told us they were happy with the improvements made as it made it easier to monitor and record the support needs of each person.

During our inspection we looked at six care plans. Some of the information in the files was out of date. We did not see any evidence through the care plans or through our observations that the individuals were involved in making decisions about activities or care and support or that the information contained within their care plans was being used in accordance with their wishes. Families had little or no involvement with the care plans.

We spoke with two visiting health care professionals who said that they had confidence in the staff to ensure that people were well cared for. On the day of the inspection the manager advised us of changes within the service. We were told that a Team Co-ordinator had recently left employment as well as several of the care staff. The manager told us that she was confident the appropriate level of support could be maintained through the changes. We saw the rota reflected the level of staff the manager told us they needed to deliver the service safely

We found records were out of date and incomplete. We saw quality measures and ways to improve the service were discussed at team meetings and there was an emphasis on a new behaviour framework for staff to assist them in their personal development.

We spoke with families who were generally very happy with the service.

Evidence from our observations and discussions with relatives and staff all indicated that people were treated with respect and had their dignity and privacy maintained.

People's individual care needs were well met by the service in a personalised and individual manner. There were care records that demonstrated that people's needs were regularly reassessed. Care planning provided good detailed information regarding how to meet each person's needs and relatives believed they were appropriately involved in discussions.

Most of the care staff who were working at Meade Close had been there for several years. They had a good understanding of individuals' needs and believed that communication systems within the home were good. This meant they were confident that they had up-to-date information to help enable them to provide a good service.

Everybody who we spoke with believed that people living at the home were protected from abuse or exploitation.

Relatives who we spoke with described good communication with the staff who were competent and approachable. There was a variety of means by which relatives and staff could comment on the quality of the service provided. People told us they believed their views would be listened to.