Archived: Carlton And Pelham House

Updated 2 September 2016

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 August 2016 and was unannounced which meant the service had no prior warning of our visit.

The inspection team comprised two Adult Social Care inspectors.

Prior to the inspection, we gathered information about the service from notifications received by the Care Quality Commission and the 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. The service had returned the PIR in a timely manner.

We also contacted the local authority commissioning and safeguarding teams as well as health and social care professionals to ask them for their views on the service and whether they had any concerns.

During the inspection we reviewed four people's care records, some in detail and others to look at specific information, three staff files, medicines records, staff training information as well as records relating to the management of the service. We spoke with three people living at the service, one social care professional, four staff members, the area manager and the group governance lead.

Updated 2 September 2016

We inspected Carlton and Pelham House on 9 August 2016 and our visit was unannounced. The service had previously been inspected in July 2013, when it had met all the standards inspected at that time.

Carlton and Pelham House is located in the Undercliffe area of Bradford, providing care and support to younger adults with learning disabilities. Accommodation is provided in two adjoining residential properties, each able to accommodate a maximum of four people in single en-suite bedrooms. On the day of our inspection, four people were living at the service; two people living in Carlton House and two people living in Pelham House.

A registered manager was in position. 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.

On the day of our inspection, the registered manager was absent and the service was being supported by the area manager and group governance lead.

People living at the service told us they felt safe and staff we spoke with confirmed this. Staff had received safeguarding training and told us how they would identify and report safeguarding concerns. Risk assessments had been completed to mitigate risks to people's safety. We saw evidence of consent and best interests meetings where appropriate.

The premises was clean, well maintained and appropriate safety checks were in place.

Effective recruitment processes were in place and appropriate staff training was up to date. Staffing levels were good and responsive to the needs of the people living at the service. Regular staff supervisions and annual appraisals took place.

There was a robust system for monitoring and detailing accidents and incidents with lessons learned and action plans formulated where required.

Medicines were safely managed and medicines audit systems were in place. Only one person was receiving support with their medicines on the day of the inspection.

The service was complying with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards (DoLS).

People were supported with their dietary requirements and health and social care needs.

We observed staff treated people with dignity and respect and people were involved in the planning of their care. Staff knew people well and people's personal preferences were taken into account wherever possible.

The service promoted a high degree of independence among the people living at the service and goal planning was evident in people's care records.

Care records were person centred and updated regularly. We saw evidence care plans were put into practice by staff.

People living at the service were given opportunities for activities according to personal choice.

The service had a complaints procedure in place although no official complaints had been made recently.

Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and able to approach them with any concerns or issues. Regular staff meetings were held.

People living at the service were offered resident's meetings although preferred to feedback information through monthly and annual resident's surveys.

We saw a wide range of audit and quality assurance processes in place with analysis and action plans where needed.