Archived: Old Registry

This inspection took place on 2 October 2017 and was announced. At our last inspection in January 2015, we found the provider was meeting the regulations we inspected and the service was rated “Good”. At this inspection we found that the service continued to be rated “Good”.

Old Registry provides personal care and accommodation to nine adults with a learning disability. At the time of our visit, nine people were using the service.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 using the service. The provider had safeguarding policies and procedures in relation to safeguarding people.

People received individualised care and support that met their needs. There was guidance for staff on how to manage risks to people and how to keep them safe.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and recruitment processes were safe. Staff received training, supervision and support to give them the necessary skills and knowledge to help them care and support people effectively.

People were supported to have their medicines safely. They were treated with dignity and respect and were able to make choices. They were also involved in making decisions about their care and support needs.

Staff understood and protected people’s legal rights. The provider had suitable arrangements for obtaining consent, assessing mental capacity and recording decisions made in people's best interests.

People were able to attend activities and social engagements of their choice. Visitors were always welcomed at the service.

The provider had a range of effective audit and quality assurance procedures in place. These were used as a means of identifying areas for improvement and also where good practice had been established.

People and their relatives told us they found the staff and management approachable and knew how to raise complaints and concerns.

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. People told us that they were happy with the care that had been delivered and their needs had been met. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of the people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. One person told us 'I like it here and the staff are good'.

Is the service caring?

People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement. People were given opportunities to express their choices and to make decisions in their daily lives. We observed members of staff interacting with people using the service in a courteous, polite and efficient manner.

Is the service responsive?

Records confirmed people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. People had access to activities that were important to them and had been supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.

Is the service well-led?

There were systems in place to monitor how the home was run to ensure people received a quality service. People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

People, or their representatives, were provided with appropriate information in order to make informed decisions about their care.

People's needs were fully assessed and they were provided with care and support to meet these needs. Risk assessments were in place for identified areas of risk, which meant that people were supported safely.

Systems were in place to manage medicines safely. There were suitable levels of staffing to provide care and support within the Old Registry and support people to access facilities within the community.

People using the service and their representatives were provided with guidance about how to make complaints.

We found that people were well-supported and involved with their personal and health care. They were also supported and involved in the community regularly and they looked forward to this. People were supported to take part in various activities within a risk management framework that promoted their safety and independence.

The provider monitored the service regularly, had a robust recruitment strategy and had appropriate arrangements in place to safeguard people who use the service from abuse.