Archived: The Fremantle Trust - 3 The Glade

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People using the service felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report them.

People had risk assessments in place which enabled them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these against people’s rights to take risks and remain independent.

There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support people with their needs. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. Staff were not offered employment until satisfactory checks had been completed. Staff received a comprehensive induction and on-going training. They had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care and support based on current best practice when supporting people. They were supported with regular supervisions.

Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service.

People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people. Staff gained consent before supporting people.

People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required to enable people to access a balanced diet. There was access to drinks and snacks throughout the day.

People were supported to access a variety of health professional when required, including opticians, doctors and hospital appointments to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.

Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.

People were supported to follow their interests and join in activities of their choice.

People knew how to complain. There was a complaints procedure in place and accessible to all.

Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.

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 support this practice.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The people living at the service were involved in the day to day activities in the home. They also took part in various activities outside of the service both on a one to one basis called "My Time" and at the day service known as "The Hub."

We found people had detailed care plans that identified and managed their needs and any risk factors; these were updated and reviewed by support staff and health and social care professionals. People's special dietary needs were addressed and where necessary professional advice had been sought to assist in meeting people's needs.

We spoke with three staff who were able to tell us about the indicators of potential abuse and told us about the safeguarding of vulnerable adults training they had recently received. There was robust recruitment involving people who lived at the home. Records showed staff received an induction and staff we spoke with confirmed this.

The service was well led by the registered manager. There was a robust quality assurance system in place which ensured that the provider assessed their compliance with the essential standards of quality. Where necessary steps were taken to improve and enhance the experiences for people living at the service.

We saw that staff were aware of people's needs and offered choice that enabled the individual to be involved even if their ability to consent was limited.

Even though people did not have the ability to sign to agree their care plans the plans were person centred. The plans used phrases such as 'I like ...' or 'I need ' People's representatives were consulted about how people's needs were met.

The medication system was robust and the provider had put in place a policy and procedure for staff to follow when dealing with medication. All staff who administered medication had been trained to do so.

We saw that each member of staff had completed an application form, two references had been taken up and a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) clearance had been obtained before commencing employment. All staff received training such as, Safeguarding of Vulnerable Adults (SOVA), food safety, moving and handling and fire safety.

The provider has developed a detailed complaints policy. The information was provided publicly in an easy read format.