SENSE - 1 Ashley Green

Updated 28 January 2020

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 Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

SENSE- 1 Ashley Green 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 the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced on the first day and announced on the second day.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as abuse or when a person injures themselves. We contacted relevant agencies such as the local authority and local Healthwatch. 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 all this information to plan our inspection.

We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.

During the inspection

We were introduced to and spent time with four people who used the service who had limited or no verbal communication. We also observed staff interactions with people and observed care and support in communal areas. We spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager, operations manager, two members of staff and an agency staff member. We reviewed a range of records. This included two people’s care records and medication records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A sample of records relating to the management of the service, including training and audits were also reviewed.

After the inspection

We made telephone calls to two people’s relatives to gain their feedback on the service. We also continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at quality assurance records. We had contact with two health and social care professionals who regularly visit the service.

Updated 28 January 2020

About the service

SENSE- 1 Ashley Green is a residential care home for people under 65 years old with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, physical disability and sensory impairment. The service was providing personal care and support to five people at the time of the inspection.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures people who use the service can 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 that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People’s relatives told us their family members were safe and well looked after by staff. Staff assessed and managed risks to keep people as safe as possible. They were aware of their responsibilities in relation to keeping people safe from the risk of abuse. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The service was clean and well maintained and staff practised good infection control and prevention. People were supported with their medicines safely.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff assessed people's capacity to make decisions. People’s consent to their care and support was sought and their choices respected. The design and layout of the service met people's needs. Staff supported people to maintain a balanced diet and monitor their nutrition and health. Staff were suitably trained and supported and had the skills, knowledge and experience to provide the support people needed.

Staff had assessed people's specific communication needs and were familiar with the ways people communicated. Staff were friendly and kind, and people's privacy and dignity were respected. Staff showed they valued people as individuals and had formed positive relationships with them. People’s relatives were involved in planning their family member’s care.

People had up to date support plans, which gave good guidance on how their care and support needs should be met by staff. Care was delivered in line with people's choices. People were involved in a variety of activities at the service and in their local community. People’s relatives knew how to complain and felt confident any concerns would be listened to and responded to well.

The service was well led by a management team who led by example to ensure an open and honest culture. The management team monitored the service to check on quality and make sure staff were providing good care and support. The registered manager and staff team worked in partnership with other services and organisations to make sure they followed good practice.

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 20 June 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.