Archived: York Road

People’s experience of using this service:

There was a strong person-centred culture. Staff knew the needs and preferences of people living in the home extremely well. Staff had developed very positive relationships with people and were seen to display kindness as well as compassionate support to people.

People received personalised care and support which was in line with their care plan. People's privacy and dignity was respected and independence promoted. Staff were committed to improving the quality of life and opportunities available for people. The service had developed community links to reflect the needs of people. It worked with colleges and charities as well as health and social care professionals to deliver improved outcomes and experiences for people.

People were supported to ensure that the home was clean and the environment was well maintained.

Staff showed a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities for keeping people safe from harm.

Medicines were managed safely and people received their prescribed medicines at the right time. Health needs were understood and met.

There were sufficient numbers safely recruited and suitably qualified and skilled staff in place to meet people's individual needs.

Staff received a range of training and support appropriate to their role and people's needs.

The registered provider complied with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff understood and respected people's right to make their own decisions where possible and encouraged people to make decisions about the care they received. Consent had been sought before any care had been delivered in line with legal requirements.

People knew how to make a complaint and they were confident about complaining should they need to.

The registered manager was described as supportive and approachable. They demonstrated a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities as a registered person. They worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure people received care and support that was consistent with their assessed needs.

Rating at last inspection: Good (Date published 29 October 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based upon the ratings at the last inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor this service and plan to inspect in line with our re-inspection schedule.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

The inspection took place on 20 September 2016 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice as the service is a small care home for young adults who are often out during the day and we wanted to be sure someone would be in.

During the inspection we spoke at length with one person living at the home. We spoke with two care staff, the registered manager and the quality manager. We also spoke with two family members on the telephone during the inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe and staff knew what actions to take if they thought that anyone had been harmed in any way. Family members told us they felt safe knowing their relative was at York Road.

People confirmed there were enough staff available to meet their needs.

People received their medicines as prescribed and safe practices had been followed in the administration and recording of medicines.

Staff were recruited and selected following a robust procedure, which included an interview and checks on the persons suitability to work with vulnerable adults.

Staff we observed delivering support were kind and compassionate when working with people. They knew people well and were aware of their history, preferences and dislikes. People’s privacy and dignity were upheld. Staff monitored people’s health and welfare needs. People had been referred to healthcare professionals when needed.

Staff were available to support people to go on trips or visits within the local and wider community.

Staff understood the need to respect people’s choices and decisions if they had the capacity to do so. Assessments had been carried out and reviewed regarding people’s individual capacity to make care decisions. Where people did not have capacity, this was documented appropriately and decisions were made in their best interest with the involvement of family members where appropriate and relevant health care professionals. This showed the provider understood and was adhering to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.This is legislation to protect and empower people who may not be able to make their own decisions.

The provider was meeting their requirements set out in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS is part of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

People’s bedrooms were individually decorated to their own tastes. People who could not communicate were encouraged to express their views in a variety of ways; verbally, through physical gestures, body language, Makaton and British Sign Language. The registered manager and staff team had developed personal communication dictionaries with people to ensure they were able to communicate using their preferred method.

People were supported to purchase and prepare the food and drink that they chose. People who lived at the home, their relatives and other professionals had been involved in the assessment and planning of their care. Care records were detailed and gave staff the information they required so that they were aware of how to meet people’s needs.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people felt confident to raise any concerns either with the staff, the deputy manager or the registered manager. People and their family members told us they knew how to make a complaint.

Staff were trained and skilled in all subjects the provider considered mandatory , and additional training which was taking place within the organisation. Staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed the training they received. Staff told us they could approach the management team anytime and ask for additional support and advice.

Staff said they benefited from regular one to one supervision and appraisal from their manager.

There was a safeguarding and a whistleblowing policy in place, which staff were familiar with.

Quality assurance audits and feedback were collected regularly from staff, relatives and people living at the home, and were analysed and responded to appropriately. Other quality assurance audits we saw were highly detailed and conducted by an external quality assurance manager who worked for the company. The registered manager responded appropriately to shortfalls identified within the service provision.

We spoke to two relatives of people living at York Road. One person described care delivered to their family member as "very good." They said they had been concerned about the lack of a permanent manager at the home but were relieved that this issue had been addressed by the provider. Another person told us their family member was very much at home at York Road and praised particularly, two of the carers who provided day to day support to their family member.

We observed staff providing care and support that respected people's wishes and promoted their independence. Staff assisted people in preparation of meals which were nutritious. We noted healthy food options were encouraged, whilst respecting a person's right to exercise choice. Although we found the home to be clean and tidy, there were no formal cleaning schedules in place. We did note that all staff had received training in infection control.