We carried out a review of the data available to us about SeeAbility - Barclay House Residential Home 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 SeeAbility - Barclay House Residential Home, you can give feedback on this service.
About the service
SeeAbility – Barclay House Residential Home, referred to in this report as Barclay House, is a residential care home providing personal care and support to nine people with visual impairments. The service can support up to nine people across the whole service.
Barclay House accommodates seven people in one adapted building and two people in flats in the same cul de sac.
Alongside visual impairments, some people had needs relating to physical disabilities, mental health needs, acquired brain injuries, autism and learning disabilities.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People spoke highly of the service they received from Barclay House. People made comments including, “The staff are brilliant. They know me well” And, “This is a superb home.”
The service had strong person-centred values and placed people’s wellbeing at the heart of their work. People received personalised support which met their needs and preferences.
People were fully involved in the planning and delivery of their care and this was done in a way that encouraged independence. People’s care plans contained personalised information which detailed how they wanted their care to be delivered.
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.
Staff knew people well and worked hard to enable them to share their views, make choices and live active lives as independently as possible. Specialised equipment was used to ensure people could communicate and understand information freely, without the constant need for staff support.
Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing were assessed and acted upon. Staff had access to detailed information about how to keep people safe. People were protected from abuse by staff who had received training and were confident in raising concerns. There was a thorough recruitment process in place that checked potential staff were safe to work with people who may be vulnerable.
People were supported by kind and caring staff who worked hard to promote their independence and sense of wellbeing. Staff were provided with the training, supervision and support they needed to care for people well.
There was strong leadership at the service. People and staff spoke highly of the management team and there was a positive culture at the service with people and staff feeling their voices were listened to.
There were effective quality assurance systems in place to assess, monitor and improve on the quality and safety of the service provided.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (9 November 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
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.
We met and spoke with eight people during our visit. People were not always able to fully verbalise their views and used other methods of communication, for example objects and assisted technology. We therefore spent some time observing people. One person said; “I feel safe with here.” One person said; “The best home I’ve stayed in. I’m happy living here.” A staff member said; “If I had a family member who needed care I would bring them here!”
People were engaged in different activities and enjoyed the company of the staff. There was a calm and relaxed atmosphere within the service. One person said; “I go out to a day centre some days.”
People who were able to said they were happy with the care the staff provided. People were encouraged and supported to make decisions and choices whenever possible in their day to day lives.
People had their privacy and dignity maintained. Staff were observed supporting people with patience and kindness.
People had visits from healthcare professionals. For example, GPs and occupational therapists, to ensure they received appropriate care and treatment to meet their healthcare needs. People received the care they needed to remain safe and well. For example, people had regular visits by community nurses and support to access specialist epilepsy nurses.
People’s medicines were managed safely. Medicines were stored, given to people as prescribed and disposed of safely. Staff received appropriate training and understood the importance of safe administration and management of medicines. People were supported to maintain good health through regular access to health and social care professionals, such as specialist epilepsy nurses.
People’s care records were detailed and personalised to meet people’s individual needs. Staff understood people’s needs and responded when needed. People were not all able to be fully involved with their support plans, therefore family members or advocates supported staff to complete and review the support plans. People’s preferences were sought and respected.
People’s risks were documented, monitored and managed well to ensure they remained safe. People lived full and active lives and were supported to access local areas and activities. Activities reflected people’s interests and individual hobbies. People were given the choice of meals, snacks and drinks they enjoyed whilst maintaining a healthy diet. People told us they enjoyed their meals and there was plenty of food available. We observed people, who required it, being supported at mealtimes. One person said; “The food is very good.”
Staff understood their role with regards to ensuring people’s human and legal rights were respected. For example, the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were used appropriately. People’s right to choose, safety and liberty were promoted.
Staff had completed safeguarding training and had a good knowledge of what constituted abuse and how to report any concerns. Staff described what action they would take to protect people against harm and were confident any incidents or allegations of abuse would be fully investigated.
Staff said the registered manager was very approachable and supportive. Staff talked positively about their jobs and took pride in their work. One person said; “Staff are very supportive. They always offer support and guidance.”
People who required it had one to one staffing particularly if they were accessing the community. Staff confirmed there were sufficient staff to meet these requirements. People were protected by safe recruitment procedures. Staff were supported with an induction and ongoing training programme to develop their skills, and staff competency was assessed.
The registered manager and registered provider had an ethos of honesty and transparency. This reflected the requirements of the duty of candour. The duty of candour is a legal obligation to act in an open and transparent way in relation to care and treatment.
People’s opinions were sought formally and informally. There were quality assurance systems in place. Feedback was sought from people and their relatives to assess the quality of the service provided. Audits were conducted to ensure the quality of care and environmental issues were identified promptly. Accidents and safeguarding concerns were investigated and, where there were areas for improvement, these were shared for learning.
One person told us 'Staff are kind to me'.
Another person told us 'I can do pretty much what I want. I choose and the staff support me'.
The home worked in co-operation with others. We saw that each person's care was reviewed annually and that relevant health care and social care professionals had been involved in this process. The home worked in accordance with the local protocol for the safeguarding of adults at risk.
The arrangements for the ordering, storage and administration of medicines were safe. People were supported to administer their own medicines when it had been assessed as safe to do so.
People were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment. Systems were in place to ensure that equipment was regularly well maintained, tested and serviced. Furniture and fittings were comfortable and met people's needs. People had access to specialist equipment that promoted their independence.
Recruitment practices were safe and staff with relevant skills and experience had been recruited. People who lived in the home participated in the interviewing of prospective staff.
It was evident from the smiling, laughter and positive interactions we observed, that people were happy and relaxed with each other and with the staff team. We observed people moving freely throughout the home and grounds and were clearly comfortable with their surroundings.
We noted that people initiated their own activities and that staff supported them to do this. Staff showed patience, understanding and gave encouragement to people when supporting them. People were asked about their preferences in relation to food and drink and involved in discussions around planning activities and outings.