Pennine Resource Centre

Updated 21 December 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 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 inspection took place on 19 September 2017 and was unannounced.

The inspection was undertaken by two adult social care inspectors. Following the inspection, an expert-by-experience spoke with relatives of people who used the service, to gain their views of the care given. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert-by-experience had expertise in learning disability and mental health services.

Prior to the inspection, we contacted relevant stakeholders such as the local authority to gain their views on the service. They told us there were no safeguarding investigations and they had no current concerns. We considered this alongside information that we already held. The provider had submitted notifications as required. Notifications tell us how the provider manages accidents and incidents for the people in their care. The provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This 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.

During the inspection, we spoke with two relatives of people who used the service, two visiting healthcare professionals, two maintenance workers, the deputy manager and three members of staff. We looked at comments from people who used the service and professionals that had been written in a 'compliments' book. After the inspection, the expert-by-experience spoke with the relatives of three people who used the service. Not all of the people who used the service were able to share their experiences of the service. We relied on our discussions with relatives, staff and professionals and our observations of staff interactions throughout our inspection, to help form our judgement.

We looked at the care records and medication administration records (MAR) of four people who used the service. We also looked at how the service used the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that when people were assessed as lacking capacity to make their own decisions, best interest meetings were held to make important decisions on their behalf. Three staff files, which included recruitment, induction, supervision, and training records were also reviewed.

Other documentation we looked at related to the management and running of the service. This included minutes of meetings, recruitment information for three staff, staff training records, the shift handover book, complaints and compliments, audits, quality monitoring information and maintenance of equipment records.

We completed a tour of the premises to check general maintenance, cleanliness and infection prevention and control practices.

After the inspection, we asked the deputy manager to send us further information detailing the vision and values of the provider and the lead roles of some members of staff. We also requested care plan documents and learning logs for people who used the service. The deputy manager sent all of the requested information by the agreed date.

Updated 21 December 2017

Pennine Resource Centre is registered to provide care and accommodation for 19 adults who are living with a learning or physical disability. The service offers mainly permanent placements to people. However, there are two people who use the service to alternate care between their home in the community and the service. Nine bedrooms have en-suite facilities. The service had several communal areas, private and accessible garden areas, and car parking to the front of the building. It is situated close to shops and local amenities.

During our inspection, there were 18 people who used the service.

The service had 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. During our inspection, the registered manager was on leave so the deputy manager facilitated the inspection and submitted the requested documentation following the inspection.

The service was last inspected on 30 September 2015 and was rated as Good. We undertook this inspection on 19 September 2017 and it was unannounced. At this inspection, we found the service remained ‘Good’ overall, although we judged the responsive domain ‘Outstanding’.

The person-centred support plans were extremely effective and reflected people's needs very well; these were regularly reviewed. The professionals we spoke with felt support plans were exceptional in meeting people's needs and staff always updated them following their advice. People were well-supported with meaningful occupations and activities. Relatives of people who used the service and staff had been creative in designing sensory areas where we saw people engaged in activities. Learning logs enabled staff to assess the success of activities for people who used the service. People were enabled to maintain positive family connections and support networks which significantly enhanced the quality of their lives.

Staff responded to people's needs and went 'over and above' to ensure these needs were met. Behaviour management plans were detailed and included least restrictive interventions. All staff were enthusiastic about their role and the quality of care they provided. This meant that people who had previously challenged other services were being successfully supported by an outstanding responsive approach to their individual needs. This had included working closely with relatives to develop a consistent approach for some people and had been very successful.

People were protected from the risk of harm. Safeguarding concerns were appropriately managed. Staff had completed training in relation to safeguarding vulnerable people from abuse and understood their responsibilities to report any abuse they became aware of. Checks and auditable processes were used to ensure people’s finances were safeguarded.

Individual risk assessments for people who used the service were in place. These identified potential risks and were sufficient in guiding staff to support people safely. The service was safe, clean and tidy. Staff told us the infection control practices were good and we saw the service was well-maintained. Equipment was serviced regularly and there were systems in place for reporting issues.

People’s health and nutritional needs were met and they had access to a range of professionals in the community for advice, treatment and support. Staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing and responded quickly to any concerns. People received their medicines as prescribed and there were safe systems to manage medication.

People who used the service 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. The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best interest meetings had taken place as required.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs. We found staff were recruited in a safe way; all checks were in place before they started work and they received an in-depth comprehensive induction. Staff were kind and caring and they knew about people's needs and preferences. We observed staff treated people with dignity and respect and it was clear they knew people well and their preferences for how they wished to be supported. This ensured people were fully involved in all decisions and were enabled to take control of their lives; staff gained consent before undertaking any support tasks.

We found an open management culture, which enabled staff to raise concerns, discuss ideas and contribute to the development of the service. The provider had a clear strategic direction and was committed to providing a quality service to meet people’s individual needs and minimise risks to health and safety. Quality assurance systems were used effectively to highlight areas requiring development and to drive continuous improvement in the service. The senior staff demonstrated strong values and a desire to learn about and implement best practice throughout the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.