We carried out a review of the data available to us about Pinkneys 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 Pinkneys Road, you can give feedback on this service.
Pinkneys Road is a care home without nursing situated in a residential area of Maidenhead, Berkshire. The service can accommodate three people with complex learning disabilities or autism spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection, three people lived at the service. The home is a bungalow, with three bedrooms and communal living spaces on the ground floor.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. 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
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
People living in the home were safe, supported by enough staff who understood their responsibilities to safeguard people from discrimination, neglect, and abuse. Staff had effectively identified and assessed risks to people’s health and safety, which were managed safely to protect them from harm. The service had very good staff retention and people experienced care from trusted staff who knew them well and how to meet their needs. The provider's recruitment policy reflected best practice and ensured only staff suitable to support people with a learning disability were appointed to work in the home. People received their prescribed medicines safely, from staff who had completed the required training and had their competency to do so regularly assessed. Staff ensured people lived in a home which was clean, hygienic and well maintained. Staff followed required food safety standards when preparing or handling food. Staff were supported to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses, which ensured action was taken to protect people from similar events in the future.
Staff understood and delivered care in line with standards from NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence), other professional bodies or organisations and advice from specialist healthcare professionals. Staff received training and supervision to maintain and develop their skills and knowledge, which enabled them to support people with good quality care, which met their changing needs effectively. People were supported to have a healthy balanced diet and had access to the food and drink of their choice, when they wanted it. The service worked well with other agencies to achieve good outcomes for people, who were supported to access healthcare services and support when required. The environment was personalised to meet people's individual needs and the provider ensured all required specialist adaptive equipment needed to support people effectively was available.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff effectively consulted with people’s relatives, advocates and care managers, where appropriate, regarding decisions about their care. This ensured their legal and human rights were upheld and decisions made about their care and support were in their best interest.
People experienced positive caring relationships with staff who consistently treated them with kindness and compassion in their day-to-day care. Staff supervisions and competency assessments ensured that people experienced care which respected their privacy and dignity, whilst protecting their human rights. Meaningful relationships developed within the home had a positive impact on people's wellbeing. Staff encouraged people to do as much for themselves as possible and to experience new things, to promote their independence and enrich the quality of their lives. People’s privacy and dignity were promoted by staff during the delivery of their care.
People were at the heart of the service and experienced person-centred care, which consistently achieved successful outcomes. Staff felt valued and respected by the management team who had created a true sense of family within the service. Staff were passionate about the people they supported and continuously strove to achieve good outcomes for them. People's communication needs had been assessed and communication support plans detailed what support they required to communicate effectively. People’s relatives and advocates told us that when they had raised concerns, these had been resolved quickly by the registered manager and staff. At the time of inspection, the service was not supporting anyone with end of life care. However, the registered manager had collaborated effectively with healthcare professionals, including palliative care specialists, when one person was assessed to require end of life care.
The registered manager effectively operated quality assurance and governance systems to drive continuous improvement in the service. The management team effectively collaborated with key organisations to ensure the safe and effective delivery of people’s care.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection:
The last rating for this service was good (report published 19 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.
At the last inspection, the service was rated good.
At this inspection we found the service remained good.
Why the service is rated good:
People were protected against abuse or neglect. Staff understood what constituted poor care practice and ensured they supported people in the best possible way. Staff attended regular training that ensured their knowledge of safeguarding people was up-to-date. People had personalised assessments tailored to their specific living risks. The premises had appropriate maintenance to ensure that people do not sustain any harm. We saw sufficient staff were deployed to provide people’s care. We found medicines were safely managed.
Staff received appropriate support from the management and provider to ensure their knowledge, skills and experience were appropriate for their roles. The service was compliant with the provision of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 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. People received a varied, balanced diet and any risks of malnutrition were overseen in conjunction with a GP and dietitian. We saw people were supported to maintain good health.
Staff at 87 Pinkneys Road were caring. We found staff had detailed knowledge of people they supported. Staff were able to describe people’s traits and personalities because they had supported them for long periods of time. People could not participate in care planning themselves, but staff worked with other healthcare professionals to ensure that support was suitable. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.
People had detailed care plans which were regularly reviewed. We saw care plans contained detailed information relevant to each person. The service had an appropriate complaints system in place.
The service was well-led. There was a positive workplace culture and staff treated the service as people’s home. Staff expressed they liked to work together, they worked well with the management, and enjoyed supporting people who used the service. We saw there were a range of checks by the management and provider to measure the safety and quality of care.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 11 and 12 March 2015 at which a breach of legal requirements under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 was found. We made a compliance action in relation to required checks for agency staff working at the service.
After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach and submitted an action plan. We undertook a focused inspection on the 29 June 2015 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements.
This report only covers our findings in relation to this topic. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ’87 Pinkneys Road’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Pinkneys Road provides accommodation for up to three people with learning disabilities who require support with their personal care. There were three people living at the home at the time of our inspection.
Pinkneys Road has a registered manager in place. 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.
At our focused inspection on the 29 June 2015, we found that the provider had made improvements and had followed their plan which they had told us would be completed by June 2015. We found all legal requirements had been met.
Recruitment checks were now in place to ensure people were safeguarded by staff who had their suitability to work within the service assessed.
This inspection took place on 11 and 12 March and was unannounced. We last inspected the service on 25 April 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the essential standards that we assessed.
Voyage 1 Limited – 87 Pinkneys Road is a care home without nursing that provides a service to up to three people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at 87 Pinkneys Road. They had all lived there for almost 20 years. All people had complex needs and were not able to communicate with us verbally or tell us their views. We used feedback from relatives and health and social care professionals, and our own observations, to determine their experiences living at the service.
The home had a registered manager. 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. On the days of our inspection the registered manager was on leave. The company's operations manager was present for the inspection in place of the registered manager.
Recruitment practices for employing the provider’s own staff were robust and all required checks were carried out. People were protected from abuse and their human rights were protected. Risks to individuals were managed well so that people were protected from avoidable harm. A relative and care managers we spoke with felt people were safe at the service.
Staff were well trained and available in enough numbers to meet the needs and wishes of the people they supported. People's health and well-being was assessed and measures put in place to ensure people's needs were met in an individualised way. Medicines were managed well and staff administering medicines were only allowed to do so after passing their training and being assessed as competent. A relative told us they thought staff had the skills they needed when providing support to their family member.
People were treated with respect and their privacy and dignity was promoted. Staff were caring and put the needs of people they supported at the centre of their work. Staff sought people's consent before working with them and where people were not able to make their own decisions, they were made in their best interests.
People were supported with eating and drinking and staff ensured diets were nutritious and took account of individual people's likes and dislikes. People were able to participate in activities of their choice and were supported to be involved in local community activities.
Staff were happy working at the service and told us they were a close team that worked well together. The registered manager oversaw and managed practice at the service and encouraged an open and inclusive culture. Health professionals felt the staff at the service worked well with them and one told us staff were always quick to make referrals and seek advice when needed. A relative told us: "Everything is great. They are always very caring and have always been very good."
We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. The provider had not made sure that recruitment checks had been carried out on agency workers to ensure they were suitable to work with the people living at the service. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulated activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time of this inspection. We have advised the provider of what they need to do to remove the individual's name from our register. We spoke to the acting home manager during our visit.
The provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained. Since our last visit, refurbishment of the premises had occurred to increase the safety of people who use the service. There was evidence of regular maintenance of the premises, for example, maintenance associated with electrical works and fire safety.
There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. The staffing levels were set by the provider in consultation with the management and care workers based on people's dependency levels.
The registered manager was not present during the inspection. We spoke with care workers during the visit and the operations manager by telephone.
People who lived in the home had been accommodated since the home had opened. Some of the care workers had been employed for the same period, and knew how to care for people who use the service because of the long professional relationship they had developed.
The menus we viewed contained a variety of nutritious and healthy foods and were checked by a community dietician.
The provider had not taken steps to provide care in an environment that was adequately maintained. We saw problems with the carpets, some windows and the heating was not working properly.
We saw that the routines of the service were unrushed and that staff respected people's wishes to be in their rooms.
We saw that any personal care was carried out in private areas of the building and that staff communicated with people when helping them.
We had some concern when we observed that people had not been offered drinks and how this was responded to. Lunch was freshly prepared and served well. We saw staff administering medication properly to make sure people receive their medicines safely.