Pinewood & Hollywood

People’s experience of using this service:

Staff had received training for safeguarding and this was updated regularly. Staff were recruited safely and were provided in sufficient numbers to ensure people's needs were met. Risk assessments were in place to manage potential risks within people's lives, whilst also promoting their independence. Medicines were well managed and people received their medicines as prescribed.

People's needs were assessed prior to them moving into the service to help ensure they were cared and supported effectively. The service had been developed and designed in line with values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Staff were effectively trained and promoted choice and independence for people. 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.

People were cared for by staff who were kind, caring and respected their right to privacy and dignity. Staff had an excellent understanding of people’s needs.

Staff encouraged people to be involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. People were assisted to pursue social activities of their choice. People and relatives could be assured their concerns would be listened to and acted on to ensure they received a safe service.

The culture of the service was person-centred which supported people to achieve their goals.

Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.

More information is in the detailed findings below.

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated Good (report published 13 September 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection to check that this service remained Good.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

A long- standing registered manager was place. 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.

This service was rated as Good in all domains and had some excellent features.

Staff supported people at the service achieve their potential and pursue hopes and dreams though collaborative working, and innovative thinking and planning. This helped people to experience a level of care and support that promoted their wellbeing and encouraged them to enjoy a stimulating and meaningful life. The registered manager and staff team were passionate about providing exceptional care. Maintaining the privacy and dignity of people was exceptionally important to staff at the service.

Staff worked creatively and collaboratively with other health and social care professionals and outside agencies to make people’s hopes and dreams a reality. Care professionals were very positive about the service.

The service provided excellent and innovative care and support to people to achieve their potential though collaborative care plans based on their individual hopes and dreams. When risks to people were identified, the staff worked to mitigate risks using creative problem solving, whilst still supporting people to achieve maximum independence. When risks had been identified, that this did not prevent the people at the service from achieving their potential.

The service ensured that staffing levels were good and that there were enough staff to meet people’s individual needs. The service had retained a strong core team of staff who knew people at the service well. Staff told us that they loved their jobs. The registered manager increased staffing when people were deteriorating in health or at the end of their life. The service had safe and robust recruitment procedures and people who lived at the home were involved within the process.

The management team had policies in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff demonstrated excellent awareness of capacity and DoLS. Capacity assessments were regularly reviewed, and completed to ensure that they remained relevant. People who lacked capacity had best interest’s assessments in place and advocacy was involved in addition to people’s relatives.

People at the service could not always vocalise what they liked about the service due to their disabilities, however they were keen to show us their bedrooms, and photos of activities they had carried out. It was evident in interactions that people felt very well cared for and supported.

Relatives were extremely positive about the care their relative received and where involved in all appropriate aspects of their loved ones care. Relatives told us staff were extremely approachable, available, and willing to listen. They were encouraged, and supported to come to family gatherings at the service to get to know each other to develop support networks. Relatives told us they felt part of a extended family.

Staff demonstrated affection and warmth in their relationships with people, and people were happy and comfortable in the company of staff. We saw people at the service demonstrating warmth to staff in return.

Staff were lead by a manager who acted as excellent role model and who embedded the organisations values. Staff had clear philosophy that they were guests in people’s homes. Staff spoke to people as equals, seeing past the disability to the person. When people had presented with a change of behaviour, agitation, or had been challenging, staff investigated what might have distressed the person and worked hard to reduce the distress. This at times included close liaison with other services to find innovative ways to support people.

We saw that staff treated people with respect and encouraged them to make choices and express their views. It was evident that staff knew people well and were caring in the way they supported people.

There were systems in place to support people to take their medication appropriately and safely.

The environment at Pinewood and Hollywood was homely and people's bedrooms were decorated according to their individual preferences.

The provider had processes in place to seek the opinions of people who lived at Pinewood and Hollywood and their relatives. They also carried out checks to monitor the quality and safety of the service.

People told us that they were happy living in the service. One person said, 'I am happy here.' We spoke with a person's relative who said, "I have no problems at all about how my (person) is cared for."

During our visit we saw that the staff were attentive to the needs of the people who used the service. They responded to verbal and non verbal requests for assistance promptly. We saw that staff interacted with people in a caring, respectful and professional manner. One person said, 'I like the staff.'

We looked at the care records of three people who used the service and found that they experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

In this report the name of a Registered Manager, Suzette Doherty, appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.