Background to this inspection
Updated
11 January 2019
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.
This comprehensive inspection took place on 5 December 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Before the inspection we looked at information we held about the service. This information included the Provider Information Return (PIR) which had been completed by the previous manager in 2017. Following the inspection, we viewed an up to date PIR that had been completed comprehensively by the regional head of operations. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
People using the service were not able to tell us about their experience of the service that they received. To gain further understanding of people's experience of the service we observed engagement between people using the service and staff.
During the inspection we spoke with the interim manager, the care coordinator, residential lead and three care workers. Following the inspection, we spoke with three relatives of people using the service and received feedback from one social care professional.
We reviewed a variety of records which related to people's individual care and the running of the service. These records included care files of four the people using the service, four staff records, audits and some policies and procedures.
Updated
11 January 2019
The inspection of Real Life Options - 90 Capel Gardens took place on 5 December 2018 and was unannounced.
Real Life Options - 90 Capel Gardens is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Real Life Options - 90 Capel Gardens provides care and support for up to six people who have learning disabilities, some of whom live with mental health conditions and may have sensory impairments. At the time of our inspection five people were using the service. Public transport and a range of shops and other amenities are located close to the home.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support (RRS) and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
The service had a registered manager who had recently left the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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. At the time of the inspection the service was being managed by an interim manager. The provider was in the process of recruiting a permanent manager who would apply to register with us.
At our previous comprehensive inspection on the 12 July 2016 we rated the service 'Requires Improvement' in the area of Safe. This was because we identified one breach of legal requirement as arrangements for looking after people's money did not ensure that they were protected from the risk of financial abuse. During a follow-up focused unannounced inspection on the 22 November 2016 we found that the provider had taken action to minimise the risk of financial abuse and therefore had addressed our concerns. Whilst improvements had been made, we did not revise the rating for the key question Safe, because to improve the rating to Good we required a longer-term track record of consistent good practice.
During this inspection we found there were no breaches of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, and we rated the service overall as Good.
Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and engaged with them in a respectful, sensitive and encouraging manner. Staff had a caring approach to their work and understood the importance of treating people with dignity, protecting people's privacy and respecting their differences and human rights.
People’s relatives told us that they felt people using the service received the care that they needed, were safe and happy living in the home.
People's care plans were up to date and personalised. They included details about people’s individual needs and preferences, and guidance for staff to follow so people received the care and support that they needed and wanted.
People had the opportunity to take part in a range of activities that met their interests and needs.
Staff recruitment procedures supported the employment by the service of suitable staff with appropriate skills and abilities to carry out their roles. Staffing levels were flexible so that people received the care and support that they needed.
Staff received the training and support that they required to carry out their roles in meeting people’s individual needs and supporting their independence.
People’s medicines were managed safely. Staff liaised with healthcare and social care professionals to ensure that people’s health, medical and care needs were met by the service.
People using the service were supported and encouraged to choose their meals. Their dietary needs and preferences were accommodated by the service.
Staff understood their obligations regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). 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’s relatives knew how to raise a complaint and were confident that any concerns would be addressed.
Arrangements to monitor and improve the quality of the service were in place.