We carried out a review of the data available to us about SENSE - 70 Castleton Road on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about SENSE - 70 Castleton Road, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Visitors underwent a thorough pre-screening process before entering the care home which included direction to handwashing facilities.
People were also able to maintain contact with family and friends through video calls facilitated by staff.
The service had a cleaning rota; one for day staff and one for night staff. The daily handover sheet included all the cleaning duties.
The home was clean and free from malodour. There were several handwashing places and hand gel was available.
The service did not currently have any workforce challenges. They were fully staffed. At the height of the pandemic, they were supported by the furloughed Sense Day Service staff to cover gaps. When agency staff were used the registered manager worked alongside them.
Sense Castleton Road can accommodate six adults with learning disabilities and sensory impairments across two floors. The home provides a service to people with complex needs, some of whom have additional physical disabilities and behaviours that challenge. At the time of this inspection, five people were using the service.
The inspection took place on 18 and 26 June 2018 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in April 2016, the service was rated as Good. During this inspection, we found the service remained Good.
There was a registered manager at the service. 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.
Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. The provider had safe recruitment processes in place. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Risk assessments were carried out to mitigate the risks of harm people may face at home and in the community. People were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection. The provider analysed incidents and used this information as a learning tool to improve the service.
People’s care needs were assessed before they began to use the service to ensure the provider could meet their needs. Relatives were confident staff had the skills to work with their family member. Staff were supported with training opportunities, supervisions and appraisals. People were supported to eat a nutritionally balanced diet and to maintain their health.
The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the need to obtain consent before delivering care. 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 described people’s individual care needs and preferences. Relatives were kept updated on the well-being of their family member and were invited to participate in events held at the service. Staff were knowledgeable about equality and diversity. People were supported to maintain their independence and their privacy and dignity was promoted.
Care plans were personalised and contained people’s preferences. Staff understood how to deliver personalised care. The service was meeting people’s accessible communication needs. The provider had introduced a new way of record-keeping so that records would have more meaning for people. Staff recorded what worked well and what did not work well for people so that consistent support could be offered. People were offered a range of activities to participate in at home and in the community. The service had a complaints procedure and kept a record of complaints.
Relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the leadership in the service. The provider had a system to obtain feedback about the service in order to make improvements. Staff had regular meetings to keep updated on key care topics and training. The provider had various quality audit systems and identified issues were used to improve the service. The registered manager worked in partnership with outside agencies to share examples of good practice.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection was unannounced and took place on 1, 4 and 11 April 2016. At the last inspection on 7 January 2014, the service was meeting the legal requirements.
There was a registered manager at this service. 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.
Relatives told us they thought their family members were safe. Staff were knowledgeable about the procedures for raising safeguarding concerns and for whistleblowing. Risk assessments were carried out, regularly reviewed and included management plans to reduce the risk. Building safety checks were done and were up to date. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Safe recruitment checks were carried out.
People were given a choice of nutritious and varied menus. Staff received regular supervision and training opportunities.
New staff followed an induction programme before working unsupervised. Staff were knowledgeable about obtaining consent before giving care. People had access to healthcare appointments as and when they needed it.
There was a calm relaxed atmosphere throughout the home. Relatives thought staff were caring and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff were knowledgeable about people's care needs, their likes and dislikes and how to promote their independence.
People had an individualised timetable of various activities within and outside the home. Staff demonstrated an understanding of what personalised care was and care plans were written in a person-centred way. Relatives knew how to make a complaint and complaints were resolved in line with the policy.
The provider and the registered manager carried out regular quality audits of the service provided. People and their relatives were asked for feedback to help improve the quality of the service. Staff meetings were held regularly so that staff could be updated on organisational issues and issues concerning people who used the service.
One family member told us they, 'Got on very well with staff.' They explained that they observed staff take care of their relative. A second family member said their relative was, 'Always clean and tidy, and had their meals at the right time.' A third family member explained when the person returned to the home after the Christmas holidays they went straight to their room and seemed happy to be back at the home.
We observed people cooking with members of staff, watching television and listening to music.
Before people received care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. People received the care and support that met their needs. We found that medicines were managed in a safe way. We found that staff were supported by the registered manager and had regular supervision sessions and an annual appraisal. We saw that people had individual records which were stored safely.
People's needs were assessed before they came to live at the home. Care plans were evaluated regularly and were individualised. We found that each person had a key worker.
We looked at staff records and found that adequate checks were done before recruitment. There were verified references, Criminal Record Bureau checks and completed application forms in all the staff files we viewed. There was evidence that staff received regular training including safeguarding vulnerable adults. All staff were knowledgeable about the different types of abuse and the reporting procedure if they witnessed any abuse.
On the day of our visit there were enough skilled staff to look after people's needs. We spoke to three staff and they were all aware of people's needs their likes and dislikes. Care plans and risk assessments corresponded with what we were told.
The manager undertook regular audits and spot checks and we found that incidents and complaints were investigated.