Archived: Raynel Drive

Updated 30 March 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 11February 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

At the time of this inspection four people were staying at the home. During our visit we spoke with three members of staff, the registered manager and two people staying at the home. Others who used the service were unable to tell us about their experience of living at the home. We spent some time observing care and support in the dining room and lounge area. We looked at all areas of the home including people’s bedrooms, communal bathrooms and lounge areas. We looked at documents and records that related to people’s care, support and the management of the home. We looked at three people’s care and support plans.

Before our inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the home. We contacted Healthwatch to obtain any relevant information they had about the service. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

Updated 30 March 2015

This was an announced inspection carried out on the 11February 2015. At the last inspection in April 2014 we found the provider met the regulations we looked at.

Raynel Drive provides 24 hour personal care and support for up to five people who have learning disabilities and complex needs. The care provided is short term. 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.

At this inspection we found the provider had systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff understood how to keep people safe and knew the people they were supporting very well. People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place to make sure suitable staff worked with people who used the service. Staff were skilled and experienced to meet people’s needs because they received appropriate training, supervision and appraisal.

The service met the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards.

Care was personalised and people were well supported. People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. People received good support to make sure their nutritional and health needs were appropriately met.

The service had good management and leadership. The provider had a system to monitor and assess the quality of service provision. Safety checks were carried out around the service and any safety issues were reported and dealt with promptly.

People had access to activities that were provided both in-house and in the community. One person told us they had been to the training centre and they were going shopping on the day of our inspection.

We observed good interactions between staff and people who used the service and the atmosphere was happy, relaxed and inclusive. Staff were aware of the values of the service and knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw copies of reports produced by the registered manager and the provider. The reports included any actions required and these were checked each month to determine progress. These ensured actions were completed to improve service delivery.

We saw a complaints procedure was displayed in the home. This provided information on the action to take if someone wished to make a complaint.