Bluebell House

Updated 4 January 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 was a comprehensive inspection. It took place on 27 November 2018 and was announced, which meant that the staff and provider knew we would be visiting. This was because the service is small and the registered manager is often out of the building. We needed to be sure they would be in. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before our inspection, we looked at the information we held about the service which included statutory notifications we had received from the provider. A statutory notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. To gather their views of the care provided, we contacted the commissioners of the relevant local authority, the local authority safeguarding team, the fire service and other professionals, this included health professionals who had worked with the service.

Due to technical problems, the provider was not able to complete a Provider Information return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we made the judgements in this report.

During this inspection we spoke with one person who used the service. We looked at two plans of support and two people’s medicine records. We spoke with eight members of staff, including the registered manager, six support workers and the provider’s representative. We looked at four staff files, which included recruitment records. We also reviewed a range of records involved with the day to day running and quality monitoring of the service.

We completed a tour of the premises and spent time observing people in the communal areas of the building.

Updated 4 January 2019

This inspection took place on 27 November 2018 and was announced. This was because 51 Bellevue Grove is a three-bedded service for people with learning disabilities, People may have been out and we needed to ensure staff were available to support us during this inspection.

51 Bellevue Grove is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service at 51 Bellevue Grove is based in a detached house in a residential area of Middlesbrough, close to local amenities. It provides support and accommodation for up to three people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were two people living at 51 Bellevue Grove.

This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered by CQC in November 2017.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.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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.

Safeguarding and whistleblowing policies and procedures were in place to help protect people from harm. Staff knew how to identify and report suspected abuse. There were suitable numbers of staff on duty to ensure people’s needs were met. Pre-employment checks were made to reduce the likelihood of employing unsuitable staff.

Risks to people were assessed and staff knew what to do to reduce identified risks to people. Environmental risk assessments were also in place covering some of the tasks carried out by staff. Medicines were administered safely. Maintenance and equipment checks were undertaken to help ensure the environment was safe. Emergency contingency plans were in place. Staff followed infection control practices to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.

The registered manager told us that lessons were learnt when they reviewed accidents and incidents to determine any themes or trends.

Staff received the training, supervision and appraisal they needed to be able to carry out their role effectively including specialist training to equip them to meet the individual needs of the people they supported. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team.

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 had access to a range of healthcare such as GPs and hospital services. The service worked with a range of health and social care professionals to ensure people’s individual needs were being met. People’s nutritional needs were met.

People were encouraged to maintain and develop their independent living skills and carried out household tasks such as cooking and cleaning with support from staff.

Care was planned and delivered in a way that responded to people’s individual needs. People were supported by a regular team of staff who were knowledgeable about their preferences. Staff were kind and respectful to people. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Policies and practices within the service helped to ensure that everyone was treated equally. Staff encouraged people to access a range of activities.

The provider and registered manager had a quality assurance system in place. Audits covered areas such as support plans, complaints and safeguarding. People knew how to complain and a complaints procedure was in place.

Meetings for staff and people who used the service were held regularly. This enabled people to be involved in decisions about how the service was run.