Archived: Leeds Mencap - The Rookery

Updated 12 April 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 comprehensive inspection took place on 21 and 22 March 2018. It was unannounced on the first day and was carried out by one inspector.

Before our inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the service, including previous inspection reports and statutory notifications sent to us by the provider. Statutory notifications contain information about changes, events or incidents that the provider is legally required to send us. We contacted the local authority, other stakeholders and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). 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.

During our inspection we met and spoke with all the people who used the service. Some people were not able to verbalise their views and used other methods of communication, for example

pictures or sign language. We observed the interaction between them and the staff. We spoke with two relatives by telephone. We also spoke with six staff, the deputy manager, the registered manager and the provider’s chief executive officer.

We spent time looking at documents and records related to people’s care and the management of the service. We looked at three people’s care plans and three people’s medicines records.

Updated 12 April 2018

Leeds Mencap- The Rookery is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care under a contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.

Leeds Mencap-The Rookery provides a service for 12 people who have a learning disability and is situated in a residential area close to Chapel Allerton in the north of Leeds. At the time of our inspection, 12 people were using the service.

The care service was developed and designed many years ago. However, the provider ensures the service is 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 our last inspection on 22 December 2015 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.

This inspection took place 21 and 22 March 2018. The inspection was unannounced on the first day; this meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting. We also made telephone calls to people’s relatives on 22 March 2018.

Why the service is rated good:

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 remained safe at the service. People were protected by safe recruitment procedures which helped to make sure only staff suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed. Staff told us there were enough staff available to meet the needs of people and support them with any activities or trips out. Staff had received safeguarding training and risk assessments and management plans had been developed when needed to reduce the risk of harm occurring. People received their medicines safely and staff were suitably trained. Staff promoted good infection prevention and control practices.

People continued to receive care from staff who had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support them. All staff had completed a range of training such as safeguarding and new staff completed the Care Certificate (a nationally recognised training course for staff new to care). Training records needed to be updated to clearly show all the training staff had completed. The registered manager had an action plan in place to ensure this happened.

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. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people's consent prior to care and support being provided. People’s health was monitored by the staff and they had access to a variety of healthcare professionals. This helped ensure people's healthcare needs were met. People's nutritional needs were met. People told us they enjoyed the food and menus were varied.

People told us they liked the staff that worked at the home. Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion. People were treated with dignity and their choices were respected by staff. People’s independence was promoted. There was a wide range of activities available for people both in the home and in the community. People were supported to maintain friendships outside of the service.

Care records were detailed, person centred and held full details on how people liked their needs to be met; taking into account people's preferences and wishes. People's care and support was based on best practice guidelines; helping to ensure the best outcomes for people.

People, staff and relatives spoke positively about the management team. Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor and continually improve the quality of the service provided. Policies and procedures were in place and were kept under review. Feedback was obtained from people who used the service, their families and representatives. There was a procedure to help people to complain if they wanted to.

.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.