Archived: Care Management Group - 100 Goldstone Crescent

100 Goldstone Crescent is a supported living house, supporting three adults at the time of the inspection. All people receiving care had a learning disability and additional needs such as mental health needs, sensory impairment, autistic spectrum disorder and/or long-term conditions such as epilepsy.

The Care Quality Commission inspects the care and support the service provides to adults but does not inspect the accommodation they live in. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care, this is help with tasks related to personal hygiene, medicines and eating.

Accommodation was provided over two floors and communal areas included a lounge, dining room and kitchen. People had their own rooms. People had access to gardens at the rear of the home.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support in the following ways; promotion of choice and control, independence and inclusion. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service:

Throughout the inspection, we observed positive, fun interactions between people and staff. A relative said, “They do love [Person], they’re not just there as carers, it’s like having a second home.” Another relative told us, “I think the staff are wonderful, they feel like my extended family, [Person] is happy there.”

People received their medicines safely. A range of quality assurance systems monitored the quality of care and the service overall. The provider’s internal quality assurance team carried out annual audits and the regional manager carried out quarterly audits. The registered manager carried out audits and this monitoring did not always lead to improvements or learning, this was an area of improvement. Where audits had identified issues with medicines storage no sustained action had taken place. No people had been harmed by any of the issues found. We told the provider about what we found, and they took immediate actions. We have written about this in the well-led section of the report.

People had access to a range of healthcare professionals and services. A GP told us, “They are treated as individuals and receive the highest standard of care.”

People were safe and staff knew what action to take if they had any concerns about people’s safety or welfare. People’s risks were identified and assessed appropriately, a commissioner told us, "It's a really good service, the manager and all support workers manage risk well and work with people to develop independence."

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs, to enable them to engage with activities, access the community and to live their lives as independently as possible. Support plans were detailed and guided staff about people’s current needs and how to meet them. People received personalised care that was tailored to meet their individual needs, preferences and choices. Staff supported people to make choices and to live as independently as possible. Staff completed training that was driven by the needs of the people and were experienced in their roles to provide effective care to people.

Rating at the last inspection: The last rating for this service was Good (published 28 July 2017).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Care Management Group – 100 Goldstone Crescent provides personal care and accommodation for three younger adults who have learning disabilities. The support provided is tailored to meet people’s individual needs and enables the person to be as autonomous and independent as possible. There were three people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

At the last inspection on 12 August 2014, the service was rated Good overall. At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall.

People and their relatives told us they felt people continued to be safe in the service. They knew who they could talk with if they had any concerns. They felt it was somewhere where they could raise concerns and they would be listened to. Systems in place to assess and manage risks had been maintained to provide safe and effective care. People continued to be supported by staff who had been through robust recruitment procedures.

Sufficient numbers of suitable staff had been maintained to keep people safe and meet their care and support needs. Staff on the day shifts usually covered any gaps in day staff. One member of staff told us, “There is a minimum of two staff on the shift. That’s more than enough. It’s a lovely team. Two team members have been here for many years, so know the people well.” Staff told us they received supervision and they were well supported. They had received training to develop their skills and knowledge by receiving training which helped them to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively.

Care and support provided was personalised and based on the identified needs of each individual. People’s care and support plans and risk assessments had been maintained and reviewed regularly. Where people were unable to make decisions for themselves this had been considered under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People continued to live in a service with a relaxed and homely feel. People were supported by kind and caring staff who treated them with respect and dignity. One member of staff told us, “It’s like a family here.” They were spoken with and supported in a sensitive, respectful and professional manner.

People told us they liked the food provided. Staff told us that an individual’s dietary requirements had been considered and people were regularly consulted about their food preferences.

Relatives told us communication with the service was good. People had regular opportunities to comment on the care they received. They were aware who to speak with if they had any concerns.

Staff told us that communication throughout the service continued to be good and included comprehensive handovers at the beginning of each shift and staff meetings. They confirmed that they felt valued and supported by the manager, who they described as very approachable. The registered manager told us that senior staff had maintained a range of internal audits, and records confirmed this. They operated an 'open door policy' so people living in the service, staff and visitors could discuss any issues they may have.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

People who used the service had an active voice in their support programme and where appropriate, indicated their agreement.

We found that people’s needs were assessed and support was planned and delivered to meet identified needs. We saw and heard from people who told us that they felt safe and happy living at the service. One person who lives at 100 Goldstone Crescent told us “I like it here. I can bake cakes on my day off.” We saw people were supported sensitively and respectfully in a manner which valued them. A relative told us “The staff and facilities are excellent.”

We found that appropriate standards of hygiene had been maintained and people were supported in a clean, hygienic environment.

We saw there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

Records relevant to the management of the services were accurate and fit for purpose.

As far as practicable and in accordance with their individual care plans, people were enabled and supported to make choices about their daily lives. They had input into how the home was run and were able to influence decision making processes. Care workers had developed awareness and a sound understanding of each individual's care and support needs. This was evident from direct observation of individuals being supported in a professional, sensitive and respectful manner.

Communication and consultation with people's family members was effective and ongoing. Relatives felt well informed and had the opportunity to partake in individual assessment, care planning and reviewing processes.

Positive comments received from people living in the home and their relatives indicated a high level of satisfaction with the home and the services provided:

'I like living here. The staff know me very well and I have everything I need'.

'The care provided is very good and staff are excellent. It gives us peace of mind knowing that she is being so well looked after and her needs are being met.