Archived: Short Term Breaks - 69 Neithrop Avenue

The care service had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service did not have a registered manager at the time of the inspection. The provider was proposing to register an existing registered manager at another service to oversee 69 Neithrop Avenue. In the meantime the service was overseen by a service manager, a Community Support Leader and a deputy manager. Support was also provided from the nominated individual (a nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the regulated activity provided) and a registered manager from another 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.

Rating at last inspection: Good

At our last inspection in October 2015 we rated the service as Good overall. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated Good:

The provider was not fully following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We have made a recommendation about the provider ensuring all guidance is referred to.

The service had not always notified the Care Quality Commission about changes that affected the service. We have made a recommendation that provider reviews their internal processes to ensure that all notifications are submitted as required.

The service was being managed, in the absence of a registered manager, by staff in the service that were supported by a service manager and the nominated individual.

People remained safe at the service. Staff knew how to recognise safeguarding concerns and what to do if they suspected any abuse. Risk assessments were carried out to promote people’s well-being and recognise people’s individual abilities. There were enough staff to keep people safe and the provider followed safe recruitment procedures. Medicines were administered in line with guidance.

People continued to receive support from effective staff. People’s needs had been fully assessed to ensure that staff had guidance to meet these needs. Staff were knowledgeable, skilled and had the relevant skills and experience. Records confirmed staff received regular supervision sessions and they told us they were well supported.

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 support this practice.

People were supported to access health professionals when needed and staff worked closely with various external professionals to ensure people’s health needs were met. People were given choice about what they ate alongside appropriate support to ensure a balanced diet.

The service continued to support people in a kind and caring way. People were treated with kindness and as individuals. People were involved in decisions about their care needs and the support they received. People’s dignity, privacy and confidentiality were respected, and they received person centred care that included access to information that met their needs.

The service remained responsive to people's needs and ensured people’s changing needs were recognised and appropriate changes to support were implemented promptly. People were supported to raise concerns if necessary.

The management team were keen to ensured staff put people at the forefront of the service delivery. There was an open and positive culture that valued and engaged people, relatives and staff. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. The service worked well with various external professionals to ensure people received the input they needed from all sources.

We spoke with two guests informally who were staying at the service, one relative and four members of care staff. One guest was able to tell us 'they liked coming here its good fun'. A relative told us 'I am very happy with the service, I have been using it for about a year'. Another guest told us, 'I do lots of things when I am here, it's good fun'.

We observed care workers providing care in a sensitive and dignified manner. Personal care was carried out behind closed doors ensuring people's privacy was maintained.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

We spoke with three care workers during our visit. Care workers were very motivated, caring and attentive to people. One care worker told us 'I love this job, I have been doing it for 12 years'. Another care worker said 'the training with the Camden Society is brilliant, they have their own trainers who come out to us.'

We looked at the care plans for the four guests who were there for the evening and following days. These showed that a range of planned activities had been drawn up based on the previous history of what the guests had enjoyed doing. Activities included swimming, bowling, and trips out to community activities.

During our visit we observed that there were enough care workers to meet the assessed needs of the guests who were staying in the home. One guest said 'my carer is always around if I need them'.

The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor and record that the service was meeting the needs of the people who lived there. They did this by gaining and recording feedback from the people who used the services, their relatives and visiting professionals.