Background to this inspection
Updated
5 June 2018
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 20 April and 23 April 2018 and was carried out by one inspector. The inspection was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice because it is small and we needed to be sure that the manager would be in.
In planning the inspection we used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed information we hold about the service including previous inspection reports and notifications.
People using the service could not speak with us. We observed how staff supported people to help us understand their experience. During the inspection we spoke to three relatives. We spoke with five care staff, the deputy manager, and the registered manager. Following the inspection we spoke to seven more relatives and four health professionals including two social workers, a dietician and a psychiatrist.
We looked at three peoples’ assessment and support plans. We also looked at records relating to the management of the respite service including staff rotas, medicine administration records, meeting minutes and the recruitment information for three staff.
We pathway tracked three people having respite at the service. Pathway tracking is where we review records and do observations to see if people are supported in line with their assessed needs.
Updated
5 June 2018
Prince of Wales Road (5) is a respite care home for up to eight people with a learning disability, physical disability, and dual or multi-complex disabilities with some sensory loss. The home is on two floors and is close to the town centre. There are seven rooms and a self-contained flat.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
.
There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet people’s needs. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from harm and abuse and were confident in how they would raise concerns internally or externally. There were processes in place to ensure safe recruitment of staff who were suitable to work with vulnerable people.
People’s needs were thoroughly assessed prior to them coming to respite with their input sought wherever possible alongside involvement from their relatives, regular support staff and health professionals. People were supported by staff with the skills, experience and attitude to meet their individual needs and help them relax and enjoy their stay. Most people were non-verbal but the staff’s in-depth knowledge of each person’s preferred means of communication meant that they were given the opportunity to express their views and make decisions about what they wanted to happen while there.
People were supported by staff who were consistently kind, caring and attentive. Relatives told us they felt their family members were safe and well looked after. When people required reassurance or emotional support this was provided in a timely and respectful way. We observed people relaxed and smiling in the presence of staff. Interactions were person-centred and respectful. People were supported to have maximum choice and control, as their abilities allowed, and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
There was a strong emphasis on maintaining continuity for people on respite so that they could continue enjoying activities that they usually enjoyed in the community. This included attending local day centres, listening to their favourite music, trips to the cinema, and baking. The home conducted annual surveys to ensure that people and those important to them had an opportunity to provide feedback on the quality of the service. Relatives told us that they were happy with the service and felt consulted and listened to. Health professionals praised the home’s responsiveness and adaptability when people needed emergency respite and viewed the home as an integral contributor to reviews of risks people faced. This meant people and their family members received maximum benefit from respite stays ensuring that placements at home were sustained.
The home had a homely and relaxed atmosphere. Staff, relatives and health professionals expressed confidence in the management of the home. Staff said that they felt supported and were praised for their achievements. This helped to motivate them. Staff were encouraged to raise issues or concerns. They said they felt able to do this as the management were approachable and listened to them. There were systems in place to measure quality and performance and these were used to drive improvements.
The home had a registered manager. 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.