Holendene Way

Updated 18 July 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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 inspection took place on 19 June 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location was a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

We checked the information we held about the service and the provider. This included notifications that the provider had sent to us about incidents at the service. A notification is information about events that by law the registered persons should tell us about. We used information the provider sent us in the 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 used this information to formulate our inspection plan.

We spent time observing care and support in the communal areas. We observed how staff interacted with people who used the service. We spoke with two people who used the service and one member of care staff. We also spoke with the manager and the area manager. After the inspection we spoke with a relative on the telephone.

We looked at the care records for three people. We checked that the care they received matched the information in their records. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service, including audits carried out within the home and staff files.

Updated 18 July 2018

Holendene Way is registered to provide personal care for up to four adults with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection four people were using the service.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

There was not registered manager in post. There is a care coordinator acting as manager who is responsible for the running of the home. 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 continued to receive safe care. People were safe and individual risks to people were considered and reviewed when needed. There were enough staff available to offer support to people and medicines were managed in a safe way. There were safeguarding procedures in place these were followed to ensure people were protected from potential harm. Infection control procedures were in place and followed. There were systems in place to ensure lessons were learnt when things went wrong.

People continued to receive effective care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People enjoyed the food that was available and were offered a choice. Staff were supported and trained to ensure that they had the skills to support people effectively, in line with current best practice. When needed people received support from health professionals in a timely manner. The home was decorated to meet people’s individual needs.

People continued to be supported in a caring way by staff they were happy with. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted and people continued to be offered choices. People were encouraged to maintain relationships that were important to them.

People continued to receive responsive care. People received care that was responsive to their needs and preferences. People had the opportunity to participate in activities they enjoyed. When needed people had information available to them in an accessible format. Complaint procedures were in place and followed when needed.

The service remained well led. Quality assurance systems were in place to identify where improvements could be made and when needed these changes were made. The provider notified us of significant events that occurred within the home. Feedback was sought from people and their relatives and this was used to bring about changes.