We carried out a review of the data available to us about Real Life Options - 96 Bishopton Road 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 Real Life Options - 96 Bishopton Road, you can give feedback on this service.
Real Life Options – 96 Bishopton Road provides care, support and accommodation for up to six people with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were six people living at the service.
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 that 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 is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People told us they felt safe. There were systems and processes in place to help protect people from the risk of abuse.
There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff understood the needs of the people they supported well. Safe recruitment procedures were followed.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were able to choose what they wanted to eat and drink and mealtimes were flexible. Staff prepared meals that met any special dietary needs people had. People were supported to have access to a range of healthcare professionals to ensure they remained healthy.
Staff treated people with dignity and respect. There was a relaxed, homely atmosphere.
People's care was developed around their wishes, preferences and goals. Staff had explored what opportunities were available within the local community and supported people to attend social events.
A range of audits and checks were carried out to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Action was taken if any issues or concerns were identified.
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 can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was good (published 9 May 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.
This inspection took place on 15 March 2017 and was unannounced.
Following our visit to the service, further evidence gathering in the form of telephone calls and emails to relatives and health professionals was undertaken on 6 April 2017.
At our last inspection of this service in October 2015 we found that the service was not meeting the regulation relating to good governance. This was because effective monitoring of the service was not taking place. We also issued a requirement notice in respect of this breach in regulation. The registered provider sent us an action plan detailing how and when they would take action in order to meet this requirement notice.
At this inspection we found this had improved. We saw a range of audits were being carried out by the registered manager and other senior staff within the organisation. Action plans were produced when any issues were identified and these were completed within appropriate timescales.
Real Life Options – 96 Bishopton Road provides care and support for up to six people who live with a learning disability. The service is in a large detached house with three people living on each floor. Each floor has a communal lounge and dining area. Meals are prepared in the downstairs kitchen however there is a kitchen area upstairs with facilities to make drinks and snacks.
The home had a registered manager in 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.
At our last inspection the registered manager had also been acting as divisional manager which meant they were not present at the service as often. This arrangement had now come to an end and the registered manager was now dividing their time between 96 Bishopton Road and one other service they were registered manager for. This meant that there was a stronger management presence in the service.
At the time of our inspection there were six people using the service. They had a range of communication skills so although we spoke with everyone during the inspection not everyone was able to respond to us verbally.
Appropriate systems were in place for the safe storage and management of medicines and people were receiving their medicines as prescribed.
There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were aware of types of abuse, signs to look for and how to report any concerns. The registered provider had a whistleblowing (telling someone) policy in place and a hotline for staff to use if necessary.
Appropriate checks of the building and maintenance systems were undertaken to ensure health and safety.
Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and risk assessments were personalised to each individual. The risk assessments we looked at covered areas such as managing medicines, maintaining a healthy diet and mobility. Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and regularly analysed to minimise the risk of reoccurrence.
We found that safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks were undertaken prior to staff starting work.
Staff had been trained and had the skills and knowledge to provide support to the people they cared for. Staff were given effective supervision and a yearly appraisal.
Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.
People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and people’s dietary needs and preferences were catered for.
The service worked with external professionals to support and maintain people’s health. Staff knew how to make referrals to external professionals where additional support was needed. Support plans contained evidence of the involvement of GPs, Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) and other professionals.
We saw positive interactions between staff and people using the service. Observations indicated that staff knew people well, how to communicate with them and respond to their needs.
We looked at people’s support plans and found them to contain a high level of detail about people’s needs and preferences. They were regularly reviewed and updated when necessary.
People were supported to take part in activities that were meaningful to them such as drawing and listening to music. Staff also encouraged and supported people to access activities within the community. These included sporting events and college courses.
There was an up to date complaints policy in place. The complaints procedure had been produced in an easy read format and was available to people using the service and their families.
The inspection took place on 1 October 2015 and 12 October 2015. The first day of the inspection was unannounced which meant that the staff and registered provider did not know that we would be visiting. We informed the registered provider of our visit on 12 October 2015.
We last inspected the service in November 2013 and found that it was not in breach of any regulations at that time.
96 Bishopton Road provides care and support for up to six people who live with a learning disability. The home does not provide nursing care. 96 Bishopton Road is a large detached house which has been divided into two units each accommodating three people. Externally there is a courtyard garden. The house is situated close to local amenities.
The home had a registered manager in 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.
At the time of our inspection the registered manager for the service was also acting as divisional manager for the registered provider. We were told that this was a temporary arrangement that had been formally put in place from 1 June 2015 and would cease at the end of November 2015. Whilst the registered manager was performing this additional role a senior member of staff from another of the registered provider’s services in the locality had been tasked with overseeing the day to day running of the home. The registered manager still had regular involvement and visited the service at least once or twice a week.
People who used the service had a range of communication skills. People had some verbal communication whilst others used signs or gestures which staff interpreted. We saw that people were smiling and happy.
There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were able to tell us about different types of abuse and were aware of the action they should take if they suspected abuse was taking place. Staff were aware of whistle blowing procedures and all said they felt confident to report any concerns without fear of recrimination. The registered provider had a whistle blowing hotline and information regarding this is clearly displayed.
We looked at care plans and found that they were written in a person centred way and included easy read documents and pictures making it easier for people using the service to understand them. The care records we viewed also showed us that people had appropriate access to health care professionals such as dentists and opticians. We saw that individual risk assessments were in place and that they covered the key risks specific to the person. The care plan documents were not always completed fully and some were not signed or dated. The review of these documents also needed to be more clearly recorded.
We observed that people were encouraged to be independent and to participate in activities that were meaningful to them. People were listening to music, engaging in craft activities and spending time in the garden. People were also supported to go out into the local community and during our visit one person was taken by staff to a motor sport event.
We found that safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken prior to staff starting work. Staff received regular supervision and yearly appraisals to monitor their performance.
Staff had been trained and had the skills and knowledge to provide support to the people they cared for. Some refresher training was overdue but we have received confirmation since our visit that all staff are now booked on to the relevant courses.
Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.
Appropriate systems were in place for the management of medicines so that people received their medicines safely.
We saw that people were provided with a choice of healthy food and drinks to help ensure their nutritional needs were met. We saw that there was a four week menu in place offering a good variety of dishes and staff also demonstrated knowledge of people’s likes, dislikes and special dietary requirements.
There was a complaints procedure in place and this had been produced in an easy read format with pictures and placed in every person’s room.
Accidents and incidents were monitored each month to see if any trends were identified. At the time of our inspection no such trends had been identified but the registered manager demonstrated an understanding of the action to be taken should this change.
We spoke with staff who told us they felt supported and that the registered manager was always available and approachable. Throughout our visit we saw that people who used the service and staff were comfortable and relaxed with the registered manager and each other. There was a relaxed atmosphere and we saw staff intereacted with each other and people who used the service in a very friendly and respectful manner.
We found that the registered manager was not conducting rigorous enough checks of the paperwork and systems in place at the home as a number of areas of concern had not been identified. Documents in care plans were not always correctly completed, signed or dated. Handover records were not fit for purpose, Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEP) were not regularly reviewed and were out of date, fire alarm test records were not accurate and staff were not up to date with all of their mandatory training.
We found the provider was breaching one of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This related to the governance arrangements. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
We observed that staff communicated with people who lived at Bishopton Road in a respectful way and demonstrated that they understood their individual needs. We saw detailed care plans which had been developed with people who used the service and were regularly reviewed.
The provider had policies and procedures in place to protect people living in the service from the risk of abuse. There were clear processes for recording and reporting any untoward incidents.
The provider had a recruitment policy and undertook required checks. We spoke with three staff during the inspection who told us that support was provided for new staff to ensure that they had training to prepare them for their role.
The provider had mechanisms in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service which involved people living in the service, their relatives and staff. There were regular audits which monitored the quality of care provided and the health and safety of the premises.
People told us that they felt involved in making decisions about their care, and that staff listened to them and respected them. One person said, 'They listen to me and help me do the things I want to do'.
People told us it was a safe place to live and if they had any problems they would feel confident talking to staff. One person said, 'I feel safe here. I've never had any complaints, but if I did I'd talk to the staff, or the manager, they're all lovely here'.