Archived: Commonside Care Limited - 73 Commonside

73 Commonside is a care home that accommodates up to six people living with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the home.

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. 'Registering the Right Support' CQC policy.

What life is like for people using this service:

People received safe care and support as the staff team had been trained to recognise signs of abuse or risk and understood what to do to safely support people. People received safe support with their medicines by staff who had received training and who had been assessed as competent. The provider had systems in place to respond to any medicine errors. The provider completed regular checks to ensure that people were receiving the right medicine at the right time. Staff members followed effective infection prevention and control procedures. When risks to people’s health and welfare were identified, the provider acted to minimise the likelihood of occurrence.

The provider supported staff in providing effective care for people through person-centred care planning, training, supervision. People were promptly referred to additional healthcare services when required. People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and had choice regarding their food and drinks. The environment where people lived was well maintained and suited people’s needs and preferences.

People received help and support from a kind and compassionate staff team with whom they had positive relationships. People were supported by staff members who were aware of their individual protected characteristics like age and gender and disability. People were supported to develop their independence and actively took part in decisions about where they lived.

People participated in a range of activities that met their individual choices and preferences and that they found interesting and stimulating. People were provided with information in a way that they could understand. Policies and guidelines important to people were provided in an easy to read format with pictures to aid their understanding.

The provider had systems in place to encourage and respond to any complaints or compliments from people or visitors.

The provider understood the requirements of their registration with the Care Quality Commission and was meeting the legal requirements. The provider had effective systems to monitor the quality of the service they provided and to drive improvements where needed. The provider had good links with the local community which people benefited from.

More information in Detailed Findings below.

Rating at last inspection: Good (date last report published 25 January 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection, ‘Good.’ At this inspection we found the service remained good in all key questions with an overall rating of ‘Good.’

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor all intelligence received about the service to ensure the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with told us they felt safe and happy at the service. One person told us, 'I love living here the staff are great they make sure I am safe when I am doing activities in the house or going out'. A relative had chosen the service based on findings from the website. It was the view of the relative that the service: 'Had a proven reputation of being safe, caring and providing people with lifestyle choices'.

We saw that systems were in place to make sure that staff learned from events such as complaints, accidents and incidents. We saw people were supported to improve their personal safety by for example sourcing specialist advice from a range of health professionals from the community learning disability team. People benefitted from having care plans that supported their specialist health care needs. These ensured their safety and welfare.

Where people lacked capacity to be involved in planning their care or making decisions that affected their safety, we saw that staff worked within the guidelines of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This is legislation that makes provision relating to persons who lack capacity, and how decisions should be made in their best interests. We saw that best interest decisions had been made on behalf of people to ensure their health needs were met and their safety managed.

We saw that people were protected against the risk of infection because staff followed infection prevention and control procedures. We saw the facilities were clean, fresh and ventilated. Cleaning schedules were in place to promote infection control standards and staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE). One person told us, 'I love our house it is clean and tidy and we help with the jobs'.

We found that the safety and welfare of people using this service was protected because the provider had followed safe recruitment practices. There was a record of work history, previous conduct and references and checks by the Disclosure and Barring Service, (DBS). These checks ensure that staff are suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

Is the service effective?

We found that the manager and staff were effective in meeting people's needs. For example people had a personal plan of care which was regularly discussed and planned with them. This meant people's desires and wishes were met as well as their needs. We saw that care plans meant that staff had the information they needed to promote people's wellbeing and chosen lifestyle.

We found the staff recruitment procedures had ensured staff did not work at the service until all the safety checks had been carried out. We saw the interview process was effective in selecting staff with the right attitude and personality this meant that staff were effectively matched to the needs of the people using the service.

We saw that staff received an induction and ongoing supervision to ensure they could reflect on their practice and develop the skills necessary to effectively meet people's needs.

Is the service caring?

We saw staff interact with people in a caring and responsive way. We saw staff knew and understood people's characters and their preferences and could anticipate their support needs.

People had support to identify their interests and the things they wanted to do. We saw care plans fully reflected people's lifestyle choices and the support they needed to pursue these. People we spoke with told us about the activities they participated in and how they enjoyed these. One person told us, 'I like the staff they take me out to places I like, I cook, and go shopping and I've been to concerts and on holiday I love living here'. Another person new to the service told us, 'It was different at first but I do lots of stuff now, the staff are good they talk to me, and help me'.

Is the service responsive?

We found that the provider had regularly asked and acted upon the comments and views of people using the service and their relative's. We saw people had been supported to join in meetings, fill in questionnaires and attend meetings about their care. People had daily access to the directors of the service and told us they were confident anything they raised would be acted upon. We saw evidence of continuous improvements led by people's desires to follow their own lifestyle choices. We saw that within the daily routines necessary in running a home, people were provided with choices for example the times of personal routines, sufficient staffing to support them in external activities and transport to access community facilities.

Is the service well-led?

The service was led by a registered manager and director. We saw that they had systems in place to ensure good standards of care. They ensured their staff selection and recruitment procedures helped them to recruit and match staff to the service. We saw staff were regularly supervised and that competency checks were carried out to ensure staff performed at the required standard. Staff told us they had leadership, training and support to do their jobs well

We saw that a number of audits were carried out in order to assess the quality of care provided. The provider had ensured that the views of people using the service, their families and external professionals had been regularly sought to ensure people experienced a quality service.

People had been supported to provide their consent to their care. One person told us, 'If I don't understand stuff the staff explain, they always ask me first'.

Staff supported people to lead a lifestyle of their choosing. People's care had been planned with them so they did the things they enjoyed and desired. People's health needs had been planned and met.

People lived in a comfortable home and facilities suited their needs.

Staff had received specialist training to safely support the people living there. Staff were very positive about the support and guidance they received, one staff said, 'The standards are rightly, very high, it is a great place to work'.