We carried out a review of the data available to us about Hunts Mencap Hub on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Hunts Mencap Hub, you can give feedback on this service.
This service also provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought or rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care [and support] service.
The care service has 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.
At the time of our inspection there were 21 people receiving the regulated activity of personal care.
The announced comprehensive inspection took place between the 15 and 19 February 2018. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.
This is the first ratings' inspection of this service since it was registered in January 2017.
A registered manager was 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.
People’s safety was promoted by staff who knew how to do this. Staff knew to whom they could report any concerns they had to. Staff had been safely recruited and there were enough staff to enable people to be safe and independent. Risks to people were considered and guidance was put in place for staff to assist people to be safe. Staff were trained and had the skills they needed to meet people’s assessed care and support needs.
Trained and competent staff administered people’s medicines safely. Appropriate hygiene policies and procedures were in place that protected people from the risk of cross contamination. Systems and processes were in place that enabled the provider to take on-board any learning when things did not go as planned.
People were supported with their nutritional and health care requirements. Staff worked with external stakeholders who were also involved in people’s care. People’s homes and the equipment they used was adapted to meet their 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.
People were cared for by staff who showed compassion as well as giving people their privacy and showing people the respect they deserved. People lived as independently as they wanted to and staff knew each person well and how to meet their preferences. People’s care records accurately reflected the person’s care needs and how these were met in a person centred way. People were treated equally no matter what their needs were.
Concerns were acted upon before they became a complaint. People were given accessible ways to raise concerns. Staff had limited information and guidance should any person need end of life care. This created the potential for inconsistencies in the way people would be cared for or supported should they need this.
There was an open, honest culture that had been established by the registered manager. Staff were aware of the standard of care that was expected.
People, relatives and staff contributed to developing the service and they had a say in how the service was run. Quality assurance, audit and governance systems were effective in driving forward improvement.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.