We carried out a review of the data available to us about Laverstoke Gardens 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 Laverstoke Gardens, you can give feedback on this service.
Laverstoke Gardens is a residential care home providing personal care for up to seven autistic people or with a learning disability, in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection the home was fully occupied.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people.
The service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of Right support, right care, right culture.
Right Support
The home enabled people to exercise their own personal choices and remain independent in the aspects of their lives they were able to. People were well cared for by staff that valued them and respected their privacy and dignity.
Right Care
People received care that respected their privacy and dignity. Staff responded to individual need in a compassionate way.
Right Culture
The home was well managed and staff were well supported to demonstrate the ethos of the organisation and support people to feel empowered in their day-to-day lives.
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.
People were supported by staff who were safely recruited. Safeguarding, incidents or accidents were appropriately identified, reported and investigated. People received their medicines in line with their needs. Risk assessments were clear in defining potential areas of need and the steps staff needed to take to mitigate risks occurring.
Staff were well trained in meeting people’s needs. People were supported to eat and drink, and their healthcare needs were addressed in a timely manner. The home was well maintained and hygienic throughout. People were enabled to personalise their own rooms.
Staff treated people with dignity and respect, and they felt well cared for. People were supported to communicate their preferences and these were accommodated in their daily care planning and their opportunities to engage in activities.
The registered manager was well thought of and ran the service well. People, relatives and staff felt they were listened to and well supported. The provider ensured regular quality assurance checks provided oversight of the running of the service.
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 (published 28 November 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a routine inspection based on the providers last rating.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Laverstoke Gardens on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
This inspection was unannounced and carried out on 25 October 2017.
At the last inspection the service was rated Good, at this inspection we found the service remained Good.
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.
Adult safeguarding procedures were in place and followed by staff to support people from potential harm and abuse. Staff supported people to manage the risks around their daily living which ensured they were safe to take part in activities of their choice. Fire safety instructions and equipment were available for staff to use in the event of fire. Staffing levels were based on people’s care needs and changed if people required additional support. People received their medicines in line with good practice.
The service ensured that people consented to their care and treatment. Staff knew their responsibilities around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People’s nutritional needs were assessed and they had support to meet their dietary needs and requirements. People were supported to access health care professionals who ensured their wellbeing was monitored and maintained. Staff regularly attended training courses to ensure they carried out their roles and responsibilities in line with the services policies and procedures. However, staff were not trained to support people with mental health needs. After discussing this with the registered manager, the mental health training course was booked for staff the next day.
The atmosphere within the service was welcoming and relaxed. People’s views were listened to and support provided was respectful towards the people’s care needs. People were treated with dignity and kindness and staff encouraged people’s privacy. People made choices about the activities and social gatherings they wanted to take part in.
Care plans were in both written and pictorial format which helped people to understand their contents better and get involved in making decisions about their care. Care records were detailed and guided staff in meeting people’s care needs. People and their relatives were supported to raise concerns and complaints. Feedback surveys were sent regularly which ensured that people’s views about the service were collected.
The registered manager provided good leadership at the service and was approachable and responsive to people’s and staff’s needs. Systems were in place to support staff with their responsibilities and the concerns raised were acted on to ensure good care for people. Regular audits were undertaken and looked at all aspects of the service. Where issues were identified, action was taken to make improvements.
At our last inspection on 23 December 2014 we identified some concerns around risk assessments not being updated and care plans not being fully completed. We also identified some concerns around quality monitoring as lessons were not always learned from incidents that occurred. As part of this inspection we checked that improvements had been made.
Laverstoke Gardens provides care and accommodation for up to seven women with learning disabilities. It is located in the Roehampton area. At the time of our inspection there were six women using the service.
There was a registered manager at the service. 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.
Staff followed safe practises for administering and storing medicines. Staff had completed medicines administration training within the last year and were clear about their responsibilities.
Risk assessments and care plans contained clear information for staff. Separate action plans were in place to monitor people’s progress against their goals and these were evaluated every month with the person’s key worker.
Staff demonstrated knowledge of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s rights were protected and their liberty was only deprived in accordance with legal requirements and for their own safety.
Most staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s life histories and current circumstances and supported people to meet their individual needs in a caring way.
People using the service and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care and how their needs were met. People had care plans in place that reflected their assessed needs.
Recruitment procedures ensured that only staff who were suitable, worked within the service. There was an induction programme for new staff, which prepared them for their role. Staff were provided with appropriate training to help them carry out their duties. Staff received regular supervision. There were enough staff employed to meet people’s needs.
People who used the service and their relatives gave us good feedback about the care workers. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and people’s cultural and religious needs were met.
People were supported to maintain a balanced, nutritious diet. People were supported effectively with their health needs and were supported to access a range of healthcare professionals. Some people had complex needs and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of this.
People using the service, their relatives and staff felt able to speak with the registered manager and provided feedback on the service. They knew how to make complaints and there was a complaints policy and procedure in place.
People were encouraged to participate in activities they enjoyed. People had a separate activities schedule which was discussed with people.
The organisation had adequate systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Feedback was obtained from people through residents meetings and annual questionnaires and the results of these were positive. There was evidence of auditing in many areas of care provided and action plans were in place to secure improvement.
This inspection took place on 23 December 2014 and was unannounced. The service met the regulations we inspected at their last inspection which took place on 2 January 2014.
The home provides care and accommodation for up to seven women with learning disabilities. It is located in the Roehampton area.
There was a registered manager at the service who had only been at the service since September 2014. 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 using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe living at Laverstoke gardens. They told us that staff were caring and treated them well. People had access to a range of activities, the majority attended day centres during the day. Some people worked part time in the community.
Staff told us they had access to good training opportunities at the home and were happy with the support they received from the registered manager.
There was clear guidance for staff on how to recognise and respond to abuse and how best to support people with special dietary requirements. We saw that staff were familiar with this guidance and followed it. We found that there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs which helped to make sure people were kept safe.
Medicines, including controlled drugs were stored securely and safely. However, some aspects of medicines administration were not always safe. We saw one medicines summary that contained out of date information, we highlighted this to the manager who rectified this during the inspection. The manager had also implemented changes to the way medicines were administered to try and reduce medicines errors.
Care plans were person centred and contained easy to follow steps to help staff support people. Some aspects of the care plans were lacking detail, such as identifying goals and positive outcomes for people to work towards.
The registered manager had only been in post since September 2014 and had identified some of the shortfalls we identified during our inspection. She had implemented some positive changes for the benefit of people using the service. These included changes to the staff rota and more support for staff around safer medicines administration.
We saw that staff had attended supervision sessions with the interim manager in November and December 2013. The interim manager confirmed that they were in the process of planning staff supervision sessions for 2014. We saw that the notes of the supervision sessions included information on what was discussed and any actions. The records were signed and dated by the member of staff and the interim manager.
The interim manager explained that they had introduced a method for staff to alert them if a person wished to make a complaint. They explained that the complaints book was kept securely to maintain confidentiality. During the visit the interim manager located standard forms for recording complaints, investigations and outcomes which were part of the complaints policy and procedure. They confirmed that they would start to use these forms to improve the information recorded about a complaint and any actions taken.
In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time. A new manager had been recruited and was awaiting their Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check before starting as the manager and registering with the CQC.
People told us and we saw that staff treated them with dignity and respect.
They were given information and were able to visit if they wanted to before they moved in.
They were supported and encouraged to make their own decisions and choices in a risk assessed environment, including activities they wanted to do and those that helped improve their life skills if they wished.
Their care plans were up to date.
People felt safe and protected by caring, competent and professional staff.
The house where they lived was fit for purpose, clean, well decorated and maintained.
The staff were friendly, supportive and there were enough of them to meet people's needs.
People enjoyed the way staff spoke and interacted with them and everyone spent a lot of time laughing, joking and smiling.
We saw and staff told us they had not received minuted one to one supervision since June 2013.
The complaints book could not be located during our visit although staff and some people we spoke to said they had no current complaints.