Cambridgeshire County Council - 20 Alder Close March

Cambridgeshire County Council - 20 Alder Close March is a care home that provides short stays for up to five people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were four people staying at the service. In the course of a year, the service is provided to approximately 50 people.

The service consists of a bungalow which has five single bedrooms, a lounge, dining room and kitchen. It is in a residential area on the outskirts of March.

People’s experience of using this service:

The service was being developed in line with the 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 and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People were protected from avoidable harm by a staff team trained and confident to recognise and report any concerns. Staff assessed and minimised any potential risks to people. Staff followed the provider’s procedures to prevent the spread of infection and reduce the risk of cross contamination. The provider had systems in place to enable staff to safely manage people’s medicines.

The provider had a system in place to make sure they only employed staff once they were satisfied of their suitability to work with people who used the service. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. Staff worked well together to ensure people were safe and well cared for. Staff knew the people they cared for well and understood, and met, their needs.

People received care from staff who were trained and well supported to meet people’s assessed needs. Staff supported people to have enough to eat and drink and to access external healthcare services when needed. Staff worked well with external professionals to maintain people’s physical and emotional wellbeing.

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 involved in making decisions about their care and support. Where people needed additional support to make decisions, staff had referred people to external advocates.

Staff supported people in a kind, caring and compassionate way and displayed empathy for people’s feelings. Staff were respectful when they spoke with, and about, people. Staff supported people to develop their independence.

Support was person centred and met each person’s specific needs. People and their relatives were involved in their, or their family member's, care reviews. People’s care plans were in the process of being completely revised to ensure they were up-to-date, and more individualised. People’s needs were constantly reviewed, and support adapted as required. Staff supported people to take part in pastimes and interests and experience opportunities they did not have in their own homes.

The service was effectively managed and people were at the centre of the service. The provider promoted a culture that focused on people as individuals. Staff had developed positive links with outside agencies and used feedback and their experience to learn from mistakes. The provider and manager had put robust systems in place to effectively monitor the service and bring about further improvement.

People and their families felt able to raise concerns. The provider had systems in place, including a complaints procedure, to deal with any concerns or complaints.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection we rated this service good (the last report was published on 18 October 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the last rating.

Follow up:

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

More information is in the detailed findings below.

The provider’s representative wrote to us detailing how and when improvements would be made.

As a result we carried out a focused, unannounced inspection to check those improvements had been made. This report only covers our findings in relation to this topic. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Cambridgeshire County Council - 20 Alder Close March on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

During this inspection on 16 June 2017 we found the provider had made improvements and that the regulations had been complied with.

Cambridgeshire County Council - 20 Alder Close March provides respite accommodation and personal care for up to five people who have learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection on 16 June 2017 there were two people staying at the service.

People were encouraged to make choices about their everyday lives. The CQC monitors the operations of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. DoLS applications were in progress and had been submitted to the authorising body. People’s rights to make decisions about their care were respected and where people lacked mental capacity, they were supported with the decision making process.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This unannounced inspection took place on 12 September 2016. There were two people receiving care at that time.

The service 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.

Staff were only employed after the provider had carried out comprehensive and satisfactory pre-employment checks. Staff were well trained, and well supported, by their managers. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s assessed needs.

Systems were in place to ensure people’s safety was effectively managed. Staff considered ways of planning for emergencies. Staff were aware of the procedures for reporting concerns and of how to protect people from harm. People’s medicines were well managed.

People’s rights to make decisions about their care were respected. However, where people did not have the mental capacity to make decisions, processes were not always followed to protect people from unlawful restriction and unlawful decision making.

People’s health, care and nutritional needs were effectively met. People were provided with a balanced diet and staff were aware of and provided for people’s dietary needs.

People received care and support from staff who were friendly, caring and professional. Staff helped people to feel welcome and “at home” at the service. People benefited from continuity of care because staff members worked closely with other services to ensure people’s needs were met.

People were involved in every day decisions about their care and staff respected people’s choices. People were encouraged to maintain cultural links through diet and language.

Care records were detailed and up to date. They provided staff with sufficient guidance to provide consistent and person centred care to each person. People were supported to occupy their time in stimulating and meaningful ways. There were opportunities for people to develop and maintain hobbies and interests.

The service was well run and staff, including the registered manager, were approachable. People and relatives were encouraged to provide feedback on the service. People had access to information on how to make a complaint and were confident their concerns would be acted on. People’s views were listened to and acted on. Concerns were thoroughly investigated and plans actioned to bring about improvement in the service.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Care and support was regularly reviewed to ensure that peoples' needs were being met. There was evidence of people's involvement in the planning of their care and support.

Staff had received training in safeguarding people from harm and had access to policies and information about how to report any allegations of abuse to the Local Authority's safeguarding team.

There were thorough recruitment procedures in place to ensure that only staff that were suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed.

.

The service had an effective system to deal with complaints that people may wish to raise. People using the service and their relatives told us they talked with staff regularly and any concerns were dealt with effectively.

.