Lonsdale Midlands Ltd - Windward Way

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ A risk assessment was completed when visitors arrived at the home. The assessment explained the expectation of visitors in line with current guidance.

¿ Information was provided to people in a format they understood. For example, pictures were used to help people wash their hands effectively to minimise the risk of cross infection.

¿ Staff were deployed to work solely within one bungalow. This reduced the risk of cross transmission.

¿ Staff supported people to access their community safely which had improved their well-being. For example, going out at quieter times of the day.

¿ People had been supported to maintain contact with people who were important to them which included video and telephone calls.

¿ People's clothing and bedding was laundered individually to reduce the risks of cross contamination.

¿ Cleaning schedules had been increased and additional audits had been implemented to monitor cleanliness and staff compliance with the providers infection control policy.

At our last inspection 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 ongoing 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.

The inspection took place on the 03 September 2018 and was unannounced.

There was a registered manager at this home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered providers and registered managers 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.

The care service has been developed and designed 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.

Relatives said they were happy about the care their family member received. Staff were caring and promoted people’s independence and people were able to maintain important relationships with family and friends. People had food and drink they enjoyed and had choices available to them, to maintain a healthy diet. Staff knew the people who lived at the home well and were able to support them to eat and drink. People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements to manage them. Relatives told us their family members had access to health professionals as soon as they were needed and were confident they received support to maintain their wellbeing.

People and their families were involved in planning the care their relatives received and were kept informed about their care. Relatives felt communication had improved at the home and they felt more relaxed in speaking with the registered manager about their family member's care.

Staff received training and understood the signs of abuse, and systems were in place to guide them in reporting these. Staff understood individual needs for people and about how to manage them. There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs. Staff underwent recruitment processes that included background checks on the suitability of staff to work at the home. People received their medicines and checks were undertaken to ensure people received their medicines safely.

People were treated with kindness by staff that knew and understood their needs well. Many of the staff had known people for a significant period of time and knew people and their needs well. A team of long serving staff ensured people’s needs were incorporated into planning their care.

The registered manager promoted an inclusive approach to providing care for people living at the home by involving people and staff in making decisions about people’s care. Staff attended regular meetings to share their views and ideas for improving care at the home. Staff reported an open culture at the home, where they felt able to request advice and guidance from the registered manger. The provider and registered manager had effective systems to monitor how care at the service was provided, to ensure people received quality care that was reviewed and updated regularly.

170-174 Windward Way provides accommodation in three separate bungalows for up to 12 people with learning and physical disabilities. At the time of our visit 7 people lived at the home.

The service had a registered manager at the time of our inspection. 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.’

The home had a friendly and relaxed atmosphere and staff told us that they enjoyed working there. We saw that staff were responsive to people’s needs and had good knowledge of how they preferred their support to be provided.

There were enough suitably trained staff to keep people safe and meet people’s preferences. People took part in daily activities in the home and the local community. Relatives were encouraged to be involved in supporting their family members.

Staff told us that they had received necessary health and social care training and had the opportunity to further develop their skills. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team to carry out their roles effectively.

Staff were trained in safeguarding people and understood their obligations to protect people from abuse. They told us how to keep people safe and what they would do if they suspected abuse.

People’s relatives told us that people were safe and well cared for at the home.

The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure people were looked after in a way that did not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The registered manager had made applications to the local authority in accordance with DoLS legislation. At the time of our visit, seven DoLS had been approved for people living at the home.

People were cared for as individuals with their preferences and choices supported.

Relatives and an advocate told us that staff were caring and respected people’s privacy and dignity. Individual care plans and risk assessments were completed and minimised the risks associated with people’s care.

People were supported to maintain their health and well-being and staff knew when to refer to other health professionals.

People’s medicines were stored securely and records showed that people were receiving their medicines as prescribed.

Recruitment checks were carried out prior to staff starting work at the service to make sure they were suitable for employment and of good character.

Effective systems to monitor the quality of the service were in place. People and their relatives had opportunities to share their views about the service and actions were taken in response to suggestions put forward. The registered manager was responsive to people’s feedback in developing the service and making continued improvements. Systems and checks made sure the environment was safe and that people received the care and support they needed.

People’s nutritional needs were met and special dietary needs were catered for.

Relatives were positive about the management team and the running of the service.

Peoples relatives and staff told us they were able to raise concerns with the provider and were confident action would be taken to improve the service when required.

We observed staff support. We saw staff were kind and treated people with respect. Staff were observed to work well with people with complex needs.

We sampled care records and found they gave clear, up to date information about the care and treatment needs of people living at Windward Way.

We looked at the administration of medicines. We were satisfied medicines were administered safely.

We looked at nutrition. We saw people were receiving food they enjoyed and were provided with choice. People unable to have nutrition by mouth were supported by staff to have nutrition via a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG).

We looked at equipment, furnishings and fittings. We were satisfied the majority of the equipment used in the bungalows was safe and clean.

We saw each bungalow was clean, and there were systems in place to minimise the risks of infection.

Due to the complex needs of people living at Windward Way, we were only able to speak with one person at the time of our visit. They told us they liked living at Windward Way and staff were good to them.

We spoke with staff. They told us they enjoyed their work and they felt there were enough staff to meet the needs of people living in the bungalows.

Owing to people's learning disabilities we were not able to speak or communicate with many people living at the home. One person told us they were happy living at Windward Way and they liked the staff. Another person indicated they liked living at Windward Way and they liked the staff who supported them.

We observed staff being kind and considerate to people. They were observed to be enjoying their work, and working well with people they supported.

We looked at the care records of three people. The care records gave us a good understanding of the range of needs and support people required. They had been updated and amended promptly when needs changed.

We looked at whether staff knew how to safeguard people living in the home. We were satisfied that staff knew what to do if they had concerns about the safety of any person living at Windward Way.

We checked recruitment practice. The organisation only recruited staff once it had received information to enable them to assess the safety and suitability of the candidate.