Archived: SeeAbility - Fairways Residential Home

Updated 10 September 2015

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 9 July 2015 and was unannounced. This is a small service therefore the inspection was undertaken by a single adult social care inspector, with learning disabilities experience, so that the inspection would not disrupt people’s routines.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home. This included previous inspection reports, statutory notifications (information about important events which providers are legally required to notify us by law) other enquiries from and about the provider and other key information we hold about the home such as previous inspection reports.

We did not request a Provider Information Return (PIR) at the time of our visit. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the home, what the home does well and what improvements they plan to make. We obtained this information during the inspection. At the last inspection on 1 March 2014 the service was meeting the essential standards of quality and safety and no concerns were identified.

We met six of the people living in the home and were able to speak with three of them. We were only able to have limited talks with some people due to their communication and language difficulties associated with their physical and learning disabilities. For these people we relied mostly on our observations of care and our discussions with people’s relatives and the care staff to form our judgements. We spoke with one person’s relative and interviewed the registered manager and the regional service manager. We also spoke with five other members of the care staff team, one volunteer and the volunteer co-ordinator. After our inspection we spoke with a social worker of one of the new people in the home as well as the provider’s rehabilitation officer and speech and language therapist for the region. We observed how staff supported people, reviewed three care plans, four recruitment files and other records relevant to the management of the service such as health and safety checks and quality audits.

Updated 10 September 2015

We inspected SeeAbility - Fairways Residential Home on 9 July 2015. This was an unannounced inspection.

The home provides accommodation and support for up to seven adults with sight loss and multiple disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were seven people living in the home with varying degrees of visual impairment, moderate to severe learning disabilities and hearing difficulties. Some people had very limited verbal communication skills and they required staff support with their personal care and to go into the community.

The service 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.

We were only able to have limited discussions with some people living in the home because of their language difficulties. We relied on our observations of care and our conversations with people’s relatives and staff to understand their experiences.

There was a positive atmosphere within the home and staff put people at the heart of the service. People and their relatives were encouraged to be involved in the planning of care. Staff were highly motivated and flexible which ensured people’s plans were realised so that they had meaningful and enjoyable lives.

Staff had a positive approach to keeping people safe. Staff showed commitment to managing the changing risks in the service and had quickly developed their skills and understanding to support people when they became distressed or anxious. There was enough staff to keep people safe and support people to do the things they liked. People’s safety risks were identified, managed and reviewed and the staff understood how to keep people safe. Systems were in place to protect people from the risks associated from medicines.

The registered manager and provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care to ensure national and local standards were met and maintained. Continual improvements to care provision were made which showed the registered manager and provider were committed to delivering high quality care. We saw some outstanding examples of how the registered manager routinely implemented good practice guidance, local and national initiatives to improve the home.

All of the staff received regular training that provided them with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs in an effective and individualised manner.

People’s health and wellbeing needs were closely monitored and the staff worked well with other professionals to ensure these needs were met. The provider employed their own central team of rehabilitation officers for the visually impaired, speech and language therapy and assistive technology staff. The registered manager ensured this team reviewed all people in the home when needed and staff implemented professional’s guidelines appropriately.

The work done by the home to respond to people’s needs while finding creative ways to develop people’s skills and independence was outstanding. We heard many examples of how people had been supported to develop their communication skills, self-care abilities and have increased enjoyment in the community. Staff spent significant time with people and their previous support providers before they moved into the home. This enabled staff to get to know people who found it difficult to communicate their needs and preferences so that their care and staffing needs could be determined before they moved. A relative told us this had made the transition easier for people.

A flexible approach to mealtimes was used to ensure people could access suitable amounts of food and drink that met their individual preferences. This helped people to maintain healthy weights.

Staff sought people’s consent before they provided care and support. However, some people were unable to make certain decisions about their care. In these circumstances the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were being followed. Where people had restrictions placed upon them to keep them safe, the staff ensured people’s rights to receive care that met their needs and preferences were protected. Where people were legally restricted to promote their safety, the staff continued to ensure people’s care preferences were respected and met in the least restrictive way.

People and their relatives were involved in the assessment and review of their care. Staff supported and encouraged people to access the community and participate in activities that were important to them.

Feedback was sought and used to improve the care. People knew how to make a complaint and complaints were managed in accordance with the provider’s complaints policy.

The culture of the home was positive, people were treated with kindness, compassion and respect and staff promoted people’s independence and right to privacy. The staff were highly committed and provided people with positive care experiences. They ensured people’s care preferences were met and gave people opportunities to try new experiences.