SENSE - 85 Park Road

Updated 21 December 2023

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of 1inspector.

Service and service type

SENSE - 85 Park Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing and/or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement dependent on their registration with us. SENSE - 85 Park Road is a care home without nursing care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Registered Manager

This provider is required to have a registered manager to oversee the delivery of regulated activities at this location. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered managers and providers are legally responsible for how the service is run, for the quality and safety of the care provided and compliance with regulations.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

The inspection was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be available to support the inspection. Inspection activity started on 6 November 2023 and ended on 16 November 2023. We visited the service on 6 and 13 November 2023.

What we did before the inspection

We looked at the information we held about the service and asked for feedback from professionals. We checked whether Healthwatch had undertaken a review of the service. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us annually with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with 4 relatives and undertook observations on both days at the service. We asked for feedback from professionals. We looked at 3 care records, medicines records and associated documentation. We spoke with 10 staff and sought feedback from them via email. These included 8 care support staff, the deputy manager and the registered manager. We checked 3 staff files, training records and records relating to the operation and oversight of the service.

Updated 21 December 2023

About the service

SENSE - 85 Park Road is a residential care home providing accommodation for up to 6 people who require personal care. The service provides support to people living with a learning disability, autistic spectrum disorder or sensory impairment, At the time of our inspection there were 6 people, all living with a sensory impairment living at the service.

People’s experience of the service and what we found:

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. We considered this guidance as there were people using the service who have a learning disability and or who are autistic.

Right Support

People were not always supported safely with their individual nutritional needs. Training was ongoing.

An ongoing refurbishment plan was in place, we saw the windows and doors being replaced during the inspection. People’s bedrooms were nicely decorated and personalised.

Medicines were administered safely. We made a recommendation in relation to ensuring PRN protocols were specific. 2 staff checked in the medicines from the pharmacy and medicines administration record included allergy information in them.

Activities were undertaken, however, these were inconsistent and lacked engagement. Records included some information about aids to help people with communication. However, people were not consistently engaged by the staff team.

Right Care

The feedback about people’s care was mainly positive and that their privacy, dignity and independence was respected. We noted some kind and caring interactions however, the engagement between staff and people was limited, dependent on the staff on duty. One person had stained clothing on for a number of hours. Where changes in people’s behaviours were seen, the staff failed to always act on this. We saw people treated with dignity and they were supported and encouraged with their independence. Records were stored securely in line with GDPR requirements.

Risks were assessed and managed and systems were in place to ensure allegations of abuse were dealt with.

Care records had been completed. However, they did not always reflect accurately people’s current and individual needs. Family told us they had been involved in the development of care plans.

Right Culture

We observed differences in the skills of the staff team. We saw evidence of professionals involved in people’s care. Staff were recruited safely, although we made a recommendation in relation to ensuring suitable staff delivered peoples care.

People were mostly supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff somewhat supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service somewhat supported this practice. The registered manager gave assurance they would ensure all staff understood how to protect people from unlawful restrictions. Complaints were managed and a range of positive feedback was noted. There was evidence of partnership working and we saw professionals visiting during the inspection.

People were engaged and involved, meetings were taking place. Staff were positive about the management and support they provided. Most relatives were positive, but some feedback was mixed.

Audits and monitoring was being undertaken. However, they failed to identify the shortfalls we noted at this inspection

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 13 September 2017.

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

Enforcement and Recommendations

We have identified breaches in relation person-centred care, meeting nutrition and hydration needs and good governance.

We made recommendations in relation to sufficient numbers of suitable staff, the management of medicines, ensuring staff understood how to protect people from unlawful restrictions, to ensure all staff regardless of knowledge and skills.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow Up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.