Archived: Foresight Residential Limited - 9 Park Road

Updated 14 September 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 31 July 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was comprehensive which meant all key lines of enquiries were assessed. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Prior to our inspection we checked all the information we held about the service including notifications which the provider had sent us. Statutory notifications tell us about specific events which occur at the service and about which the provider is legally required to inform us. We asked for feedback from the local authority who commissioned the service. Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider information return (PIR). A PIR is a form which asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information to help us plan the inspection.

During this inspection we looked around the building and spoke with seven people who used the service. The expert by experience made telephone calls to three relatives of people who live at the service to find out their views on the care and service their family member received.

We spoke with the manager, the deputy manager and three staff. We had conversations with the other staff on duty and spoke with three health care professionals.

We looked at two people’s care records which included daily recordings, reviews and risk assessments. We inspected medicine administration records and the systems for ordering and storing medicines.

We checked three staff files to inspect if the providers recruitment, induction, training and support procedures were robust. We also looked at team meeting minutes, internal audits and maintenance documentation.

Updated 14 September 2017

Foresight Residential Limited 9 Park Road is a residential care home for 11 adults who may have a learning disability, dementia, autism and/or who have a physical disability and/or sensory impairment. There were nine people living at the service and one person receiving respite (short term stay) when we visited.

We inspected on 31 July 2017 and the visit was unannounced, which meant the provider did not know we would be visiting.

At the last inspection in December 2014, the service was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained good. There was a registered manager in post, who we have referred to as ‘the manager’ in this report.

Quality assurance checks in place were basic and did not include oversight from the provider. We have made a recommendation that the provider review their approach to quality assurance to include quality checks by them or their representative to ensure the consistent quality and safety of the service.

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the needs and vulnerabilities of the people they were supporting. They were able to describe different types of abuse and were confident to follow procedures should they need to raise a safeguarding concern. People who live at the service told us they felt safe.

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 had training and used distraction techniques to support people who found managing their emotions or behaviour difficult, as physical restraint was not used. No one was deprived of their liberty, but applications to lawfully deprive people of their liberty had been made for people who had been assessed as not being able to consent to their care.

Care plans reflected people’s specific needs and how people wished to be cared for. Some care plans we looked at needed to show more detail, to be updated and to show people’s current level of need.

Staff were supported through regular supervision and relevant training was available to assist them in their role. Some staff appraisals were overdue, but the manager was aware and had scheduled them to take place.

The administration of medicines were appropriately managed and staff received training and checks on their competence.

There were robust recruitment policies for permanent and agency staff. Agency staff were used to cover gaps in the rota. This demonstrated that the manager could make informed decisions when offering employment.

People were supported and encouraged to eat healthy foods and their individual food preferences and choices were respected. People we spoke with said they liked the food.

People were referred to health care professionals if staff had concerns, which ensured their health needs were being addressed.

Regular checks were completed to ensure the building and environment was safe, which included the fire alarm, gas and electricity. People could choose how they wished their bedrooms to be decorated and had personal items that were important to them.

People were involved with some of the day to day decision making about what they wanted to happen and easy read and pictorial documents were available to enable people to express their opinions.

People in the home had access to a range of activities and could follow their own interests. The manager and staff were committed to ensuring people had access to and were integrated into the wider community.