Broadway House

About the service

Broadway House is a supported living service providing personal care to 26 people at 9 supported living settings. Support is primarily provided to people with a learning disability and autistic people. People live in individual flats and shared houses.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of right support, right care and right culture.

Right Support

People were protected from the risk of abuse and harm. A positive and person-centred approach was taken to the management of risks to people. Staff were recruited safely and trained appropriately to ensure they were competent for their role. 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 accessed specialist health and social care support in the community. Staff supported people to have an active role in maintaining their own health and wellbeing. Staff supported people with their medicines in a way that promoted their independence and achieved the best possible health outcome.

Right Care

Staff spoke respectfully about people and treated them with compassion. People’s privacy and dignity was respected. Staff understood and responded to people’s individual needs. People received care and support from the same staff team so that they were supported by staff who knew them well, understood their needs and considered their wishes, goals and preferences. People’s care and support plans reflected their range of needs, and this promoted their wellbeing. People and those important to them, were involved in planning their care. People were fully supported to live a life of their choosing and to increase their independence. Staff worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to ensure people had access to the right care and support.

Right culture

The service was well-managed. There was a strong person-centred culture and ethos that valued the individual. The organisation had a culture which put people and their needs at the heart of the service, and this was widely understood and practiced by staff. The service had enough appropriately skilled staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Staff felt valued and there was a low turnover of staff. Management carried out quality checks and made improvements where necessary. Management evaluated the quality of support provided to people, involving the person, their families and other professionals as appropriate.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was Good (published 5 April 2019).

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to an incident that occurred at one of the addresses. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe, effective and well led only. We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.

We found evidence the provider had reviewed their risk assessments in relation to this concern to minimise risks to people. Please see the Safe, Effective and Well Led sections of this full report.

The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service remains good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

People’s experience of using this service:

People received a service which was personalised and met their individual needs and preferences. People told us that their independence was supported by the service.

People spoke highly of the staff who provided their care. People’s relatives were also positive about the staff and told us that people were cared for by staff who understood people’s needs and were competent in providing personalised care.

People told us that staff were kind, listened to them and respected the choices that they made about their care. Staff engaged with people in a friendly and respectful way. Staff we spoke with understood the importance of respecting people's privacy, dignity, equality and diversity needs.

People’s care was planned with the involvement of people using the service and when applicable their relatives. The service was personalised and responsive to changes in people’s needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff received the information that they needed to provide people with individualised care and support. Staff told us that they worked well as a team and always reported any changes in people’s needs to the registered manager and other senior staff.

Staff told us that the registered manager and other senior staff provided them with the support and guidance that they needed to carry out their role and responsibilities.

The service assessed and managed risks to ensure that people received personal care and support safely.

There were opportunities for people to follow their interests and hobbies. They were supported to be part of the local community.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality and delivery of care to people and drive improvement. Development and improvements to the services were made when needed.

People had opportunities to provide feedback about the service, and action was taken to address any concerns.

The provider had systems in place to resolve complaints appropriately. People’s relatives knew how to make a complaint and were confident that the registered manager would take appropriate action to resolve any complaints or concerns that they raised.

The service was well led by the registered manager. People using the service and their relatives told us that the registered manager and other senior staff were approachable and could be contacted at any time.

Rating at last inspection: Good. Report published on 29 July 2016.

Why we inspected: This was a scheduled planned comprehensive inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.

There was 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.

The service was registered with the CQC in May 2015. This inspection on 28 and 29 June 2016 was the first inspection for the service.

Some people who used the service were unable to verbally communicate with us due to their mental capacity. We therefore also spoke with relatives of people who used the service. People and relatives told us that they were satisfied with the care and services provided. They said they were confident that people were treated with respect and they were safe when cared for by care workers. They spoke positively about care workers and management at the service.

Systems and processes were in place to help protect people from the risk of harm and care workers demonstrated that they were aware of these. Risk assessments had been carried out and care workers were aware of potential risks to people and how to protect people from harm. These included details of the triggers and warning signs which indicated when people were upset and how to support people appropriately. Care workers had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to recognise and report any concerns or allegations of abuse.

We checked the arrangements in place in respect of medicines. Care workers had received medicines training and policies and procedures were in place. We looked at a sample of Medicines Administration Records (MARs) and found that all of these were completed fully with no unexplained gaps. The service had an effective medicines audit in place.

People and relatives told us that they were confident that care workers had the necessary knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Care workers spoke positively about their experiences working for the service and said that they received support from management and morale amongst staff was positive.

Care workers had a good understanding of and were aware of the importance of treating people with respect and dignity. Feedback from relatives indicated that positive relationships had developed between people using the service and their care worker and people were treated with dignity and respect.

People received care that was responsive to their needs. People’s daily routines were reflected in their care plans and the service encouraged and prompted people’s independence. Care plans included information about people’s preferences.

The service had a complaints procedure and there was a record of complaints received. People and relatives spoke positively about the service and told us they thought it was well managed. There was a clear management structure in place with a team of care workers, team leaders, office staff and the registered manager.

Staff told us that communication was good at the service and said they received up to date information. Staff were informed of changes occurring within the service through staff meetings where they had an opportunity to share good practice and any concerns they had at these meetings.

Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. We found the service had obtained feedback about the quality of the service people received. The service also undertook a range of checks and audits of the quality of the service and took action to improve the service as a result.