We carried out a review of the data available to us about SENSE - 88 Church Lane 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 SENSE - 88 Church Lane, you can give feedback on this service.
SENSE - 88 Church Lane is registered to provide personal care and accommodation to a maximum of five people. People who live there may have a sensory condition, learning disability and/or autism. At the time of the inspection five people lived at the home.
The service applied the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensured that people who use the service 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. People using the service received planned and coordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them. They lived in a domestic size house that had no external visible features of it being a care home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Risks relating people’s individual circumstances were known and managed to minimise the risk of accidents and injury. People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse and safe recruitment processes were in place. Relatives and staff felt adequate staff were provided to meet people’s needs and to keep them safe. People received their medicines as they had been prescribed. Infection prevention processes reduced the risk of people contracting and spreading infections.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service achieve the best possible outcomes, including independence and inclusion. People’s support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
Induction training was in place to introduce new staff to their role and the people they were to support. Training had been received by staff and was generally refreshed in line with the provider's timeframes. People were supported by staff who knew their personal preferences and individual needs well. People were encouraged, where possible, to make decisions about their care and support. Relatives were involved in decision making relating to their family member where this was appropriate. Staff had a good insight of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were offered the food and drink that they liked and staff encouraged people to take a healthy diet. Referrals were made to healthcare professionals where required to ensure people's health needs were met.
Relatives felt staff were kind and caring and treated people with respect and dignity. People were encouraged to develop and maintain their independence skills. Relatives could visit their family member when they wanted to and were welcomed by staff. People were supported and enabled to maintain contact with their families.
Reviews of people’s care and support needs were undertaken regularly. People and their relatives were included in these processes to ensure all needs were determined and addressed. Relatives felt confident and comfortable to raise any complaints they had with the staff or registered manager. Relatives confirmed they were kept up to date with important information relating to their family member.
Relatives felt the service worked well and was well-led. Audits were undertaken to determine what the service did well and where corrective action was required. The registered manager was visible within the service and people and their relatives were aware of who they were. The registered manager understood their regulatory responsibilities and their requirement to provide us (CQC) with notifications about important events and incidents that occurred whilst the service was delivering care.
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 07 August 2017).
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 on 23 July 2015 the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we judged the service provided remained Good.
Why the service is rated Good.
People received the support they required to live a full and active life while maintaining their safety and well- being. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and the registered provider had established robust recruitment checks to ensure new staff were suitable to work in adult social care.
People’s risks had been assessed and staff knew what action to take to keep people safe. People received their medicines as prescribed. The systems to manage and check the medicines were robust.
Staff had received training and support to ensure they were aware of people’s needs and how to meet them. People received the help they required to maintain good health, to attend health appointments and have enough to eat and drink.
People were supported, as far as possible to have choice and staff supported people in the least restrictive ways possible. When restrictions on people’s liberty were necessary the registered manager had ensured the correct applications had been made to protect each person’s legal rights.
People were supported by staff who were kind and caring and who treated them with dignity and respect. Staff knew people well and supported people to maintain their independence. A range of activities and opportunities were provided each day that were tailored to each person’s needs and preferences. People had been supported to maintain links with people, places and activities that were important to them.
We received consistent feedback that the home was well run, and that the registered manager was supportive and approachable.
The registered manager and registered provider had a wide range of checks and audits in place that ensured the on-going safety and quality of the service.
This inspection took place on 23 July 2015. 88 Church Lane is a care home that provides care for up to five people who have a learning disability and sensory impairment.
The service has 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
We found that people were safe. Our observations and feedback from staff and relatives who visited the home confirmed this. We reviewed the systems for the management of medicines and found that people received their medicines safely. During the inspection we saw there was always enough staff to provide care safely.
Relatives we spoke with told us that the care people received was good. They said staff were kind and caring. We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect and that people were able to have private time safely as any potential risks had been identified and minimised. Staff used differing forms of communication with people such as objects or hand under hand signs to tell them what was going to happen next in their day. We also saw that staff observed people for non-verbal communication so that they could meet their needs.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including when balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care. The associated safeguards to the Act require providers to submit applications when needed to the local authority for approval to deprive someone of their liberty. The registered manager and staff we spoke with understood the principles of the MCA and associated safeguards. They understood the importance of making decisions for people using formal legal safeguards.
Staff told us they had received appropriate training and were knowledgeable about the needs of people who lived in the home. Our observations showed they anticipated people’s needs as they knew them well. Staff had received training about the needs of deaf blind people and used the knowledge to communicate and support people to make choices in their day-to-day their life. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and support them to follow interests and pursuits they enjoyed.
We observed that people were offered meals of their individual choice and preference. Staff supported people sensitively during meal times and gave the support people needed to eat safely in accordance with their risk assessments and eating and drinking guidelines.
People had been supported to stay healthy and to access support and advice from healthcare professionals when this was required.
Management systems were well established to monitor and learn from incidents and concerns. The manager and provider undertook checks and had systems in place to maintain the quality of the service the home was providing.
Care staff supported people in a sensitive way using differing methods of communication to ensure that people understood what was going to happen. We looked at four people's care records and found that these contained guidance for staff on how to meet people's needs. We saw that people's needs had been reviewed regularly.
We spoke with the relatives of two people who lived at the home. They told us they were very happy with care that was being provided. Relatives told us that they had been involved in planning their son's or daughter's care.
People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.
We found that staff knew about the needs of the people they cared for. We found staff were trained and supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard.
People living in this home were unable to tell us about the care and support they receive. We carried out a Short Observational Framework for Inspectors (SOFI) activity in the home's lounge area. SOFI involved sitting and observing the interactions between people using the service and the staff providing care.
We saw that people were spoken with kindly and supported in the way their care plan said. Care staff used different ways of communicating with people such as objects, communication cards and signing. People had their personal care needs met and looked cared for.
After our visit we spoke with three relatives of people who lived at the home. Every one we spoke with was complimentary about the home. People's relatives told us that they were happy with the care provided. One relative told us 'X is happy there and that is the main thing.'
We were told by relatives that people's needs were being met. Relatives told us 'They are brilliant at meeting people's health care', 'Meet her needs re personal care', 'X has a good quality of life, always going out somewhere, has a better social life than I do' and 'They have a good knowledge of his needs. The care there is wonderful'.
One person who lives at the home was able to tell us their views of the food provided. They told us ' I like some meals better than others but they are varied and always healthy'. Relatives told us that meals at the home were good. One relative told us 'Meals are good, people get plenty'. One relative said they had the opportunity to eat meals at the home.
Relatives told us that the home was clean when they visited. Relatives that we spoke to were satisfied with the cleanliness of the home. Relatives told us ' The premises is in good condition, it is always clean' and 'The home is spotless'.
One person who lives at the home told us ' Staff are good, I don't have any problems'. All of the relatives we spoke with were happy with the staffing arrangements. Comments from relatives included:
'Staff understand her needs'.
'There are enough staff. A long time ago there used to be a lot of agency staff used but not any more'.
' There are always enough staff when I visit'
'They have enough staff, they are very caring'.
We spoke with one person who lives at the home about the complaints procedure. They told us ' I am aware of the procedure, if I had a complaint I would tell the manager and if it was not resolved I would go higher. I have not had to make any complaints recently, only a long time ago'.
All of the relatives we spoke with told us they knew how to make a complaint but had not made any complaints recently. One relative told us 'If I made a complaint it would be addressed' another said ' I know how to make a complaint but have no issues at the moment. If I make any suggestions they act on them'.