Archived: Livability Hawkins Close

Hawkins Close accommodates three people in one adapted residential house on a residential estate. 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.

This inspection took place on the 22, 23 and 28 February 2018 and was announced. At our last inspection in March 2016, we rated the service good. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good, and there was no information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated any serious risks or concerns.

This inspection report is set out in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since the last inspection.

The was a registered manager 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 continued to receive safe care. Staff were appropriately recruited and there were enough staff to provide care and support to people to meet their needs. People were consistently protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.

The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision, training and on-going professional development that they required to work effectively in their roles. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the polices and systems in the service supported this practice.

People developed positive relationships with the staff who were caring and treated people with respect, kindness and compassion. People had detailed personalised plans of care in place to enable staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people’s personal preferences.

People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage any complaints that they may receive. Information was available in various formats to meet the communication needs of the individuals.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The registered manager was approachable, understood the needs of the people in the home, and listened to staff. There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and drive improvements.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 felt safe in their own home. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and abuse and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns. Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required at the times they needed. There was sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people and recruitment procedures protected people from receiving unsafe care from care staff unsuited to the job.

People received care from staff that were supported to carry out their roles to meet the assessed needs of people living at the home. Staff received training in areas that enabled them to understand and meet the care needs of each person.

Care records contained risk assessments and risk management plans to protect people from identified risks and helped to keep them safe but also enabled positive risk taking. They gave information for staff on the identified risk and informed staff on the measures to take to minimise any risks.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. Records showed that medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of safely. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services when needed.

People were actively involved in decisions about their care and support needs. There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Care plans were written in a person centred approach and focussed on empowering people; personal choice, ownership for decisions and people being in control of their life. They detailed how people wished to be supported and people were fully involved in making decisions about their care. People participated in a range of activities both in the home and in the community and received the support they needed to help them do this. People were able to choose where they spent their time and what they did.

People had caring relationships with the staff that supported them. Complaints were appropriately investigated and action was taken to make improvements to the service when this was found to be necessary. Staff and people were confident that issues would be addressed and that any concerns they had would be listened to. There was a stable management team and effective systems in place to assess the quality of service provided.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by knowledgeable, kind and caring staff. We observed a care worker observing people and prompting them to get ready to go to the day centre. The care worker showed patience and gave encouragement to people to promote their independence. They enquired if people had appropriate clothing for the current weather conditions. People's preferences, interests, personal objectives and diverse needs had been recorded and provided in accordance with their wishes. We found that whenever possible people had been involved in their planning of care and support requirements and their wishes had been respected.

Is the service responsive?

People were involved in varied activities that they had chosen such as, attendance at day centres, going to social clubs, meals out and helping staff by looking after their own rooms. Staff read out what they had recorded about one person who had limited vision. This meant that the person was encouraged to make comments and suggest changes in accordance with their wishes. The service worked well with external professionals such as, community nurses, psychiatrists and other doctors to make sure people received good standards of care. When changes were made these were recorded in the support plans. This ensured that all staff had been made aware of any changes in people's care and support needs.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with dignity and respect by staff. We found that the provider had ensured that there were adequate staffing levels to ensure that people received appropriate care and support. Staff had received training relevant to their roles and had regular supervisions with their line manager. We spoke with staff and found that they were knowledgeable about their responsibilities and keeping people safe. These ensured that staff provided a safe environment and care to prevent accidents where ever possible. Any accidents or incidents that did occur were recorded and investigated by the manager. Improvements were put in place to prevent similar occurrences.

Is the service effective?

We saw that individual care and support plans had been put in place which ensured people's health and well-being needs were met. When people who used the service were unable to contribute to the development of their care and support plans, their relatives helped with these and the regular reviews of them. Staff supported people in leading interesting and enriched lifestyles that met with their individual preferences. We found that people's capacity to consent to their treatment had been assessed. Arranged medical appointments were discussed with people beforehand to relieve any anxiety they may have had.

Is the service well led?

The service had a quality assurance system in place that involved people who lived in the home, relatives and health and social care professionals. Regular audits were carried out by the home manager and senior managers that covered all aspects of the service. Records showed us that when improvements had been identified that staff acted upon them. We found that staff had been encouraged to contribute to and make suggestions for improvements for the benefit of the people who used the service. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and the ethos of the service.

We found that people's needs were assessed and details about people's usual daily routines were recorded. We saw that risks assessments had been carried out and control measures had been put in place to ensure that risks were reduced.

We found that people were involved in weekly menu planning meetings and people's choices of food were accommodated. We found that there were systems in place to ensure that people were protected from the risks associated with medication.

We saw that equipment was properly maintained. We found that people's records were stored appropriately.

We found that there were detailed care plans and assessments for people who used the service in easy read formats. This made it easier for people who used the service to understand them. People who used the service were supported to take part in activities that they liked and enjoyed.

We found that there was a complaints policy in place and that people were asked regularly about their well being.