Woodhurst

Updated 16 November 2017

'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 the 28 September 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service, including statutory notifications. Statutory notifications are information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. Before the inspection the provider completed a 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. We received the completed document prior to our visit which helped us plan our inspection.

During our inspection we observed how the staff interacted with people who used the service. We saw how staff supported people with developing their cooking skills. We spoke with two people who used the service, two family members’ two care staff, one team leader, and the registered manager. We received positive feedback from four professionals who had experience of dealing with the service.

We looked at two people’s on line care records, two recruitment files training records and other records relating to the overall management of the service, including quality monitoring records and the overall safety of the service.

Updated 16 November 2017

The inspection of 88 Woodhurst Avenue took place on 28/09/2017 and on the 3/10/2017 we obtained feedback from peoples relatives. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector. The inspection was unannounced. 88 Woodhurst Avenue provides accommodation and personal care for up to six people who have autism spectrum disorder and or mental health conditions. At the time of our inspection six people were living at the home.

At the last inspection on 03 November 2015 the service was rated good in all areas. At this inspection we found that the service demonstrated excellent outcomes for people who used the service.

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.

People told us they felt safe living at the home. Staff were knowledgeable about people`s conditions, possible triggers and were able to promptly identify changes in people’s needs. Staff were proactive in observing and supporting people and deescalating potentially risky situations.

There was an embedded safety culture at the home where people were involved in developing policies and procedures and safety protocols together with staff. Staff discussed risks with people and enabled them to take decisions regarding the actions and processes needed to mitigate risks and keep people safe.

People were educated in safety protocols and attended fire safety and first aid training together with staff to ensure they were confident and able to maintain their own safety in case of an emergency.

Risks to people`s safety and well-being were assessed and actions were put in place to mitigate these risks. People were able to take positive risks and this was encouraged and supported by staff who provided people with information so they could weigh up the positives and the negatives of their decisions. This enabled people to be in control and live their lives in a way they wanted.

Staff demonstrated an excellent understanding about safeguarding procedures and signs of possible abuse. They told us they reported any concerns to senior staff on duty or their manager and they were aware of the whistleblowing procedures if they needed to elevate any concerns externally to local safeguarding authorities. People who used the service had also had training in how to recognise and report possible abuse and this empowered people and helped them to feel safe.

People told us there were sufficient staff employed to meet their needs at all times. We observed that people were supported when they required the support and had full control of how and when they were supported. Staff were recruited through robust procedures which ensured that staff working at the home were of good character and were suitable to work with the people they would be supporting. People who used the service were involved in the recruitment process and gave feedback about the applicants which meant that they were able to connect with staff from very early stages and form important relationships.

People were supported to take their medicines safely by staff who had received training and had their competencies checked. People where they could were encouraged to self-medicate and participate in regular medicine reviews.

People`s consent to the care and support they received was obtained and staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who lacked capacity to make certain decisions to ensure that the care and support they received was in their best interest.

People told us and we observed they ate and drank sufficient amounts to maintain their health and well-being. People were actively involved in the buying, preparation and cooking a range of healthy and nutritious foods.

Staff told us they received regular training and updates to ensure their skills and knowledge remained current in relation to their job responsibilities. Staff were well supported through a range of methods including work based observations, team meetings and individual supervisions.

People told us that staff were flexible and responsive to their needs and preferences. People told us and we observed that the care and support they received met their needs and was personalised to suit each individual. Professionals involved in the service were positive about the service and how it operated.

People had busy social lives and were always doing something whether at the home or in the community and were able to maintain hobbies and interests that they enjoyed doing. Staff supported people when this was required, however people were very able to organise a range of social events and activities independently. People had the opportunity to participate in a daily activity group if they wished.

The service was very well managed. There was clear and effective leadership at the service with staff having well defined roles and responsibilities. The management was open and transparent and was driven by the wishes of people they supported. The registered manager had introduced numerous innovative systems and processes which meant the service operated in a very productive way. There were systems in place to monitor and manage the overall quality of the service and this included getting regular feedback from the people who used the service and their views were taken into account.

People and their families had access to a family liaison officer who worked at the service with the aim of keeping up constant communication between families and services as well as creating a quarterly newsletter with regular input from both clients and families.

People were involved in a range of projects both within the service and in the wider community which presented an opportunity for people to be involved in the setting up and on-going management of a community facility.

People were supported to give feedback through regular meetings and had a representative to put forward their views. Meetings were held by people and staff were invited to attend where this was deemed appropriate. People told us they felt consulted and involved in all aspects of the running of their home.