Girling Street

Updated 28 January 2022

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 17 January 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection.

Updated 28 January 2022

Girling Street is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to five people who have a learning disability. There were four people living in the service when we inspected on 17 January 2018. We gave the provider just under 24 hours’ notice that we would be inspecting the service because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that there would be someone at home.

At the last inspection in April 2015 the service was rated as ‘Good’ in four of the key questions we ask and overall. The key question of Responsive was rated as ‘Outstanding.’ At this inspection we found that the provider had sustained these ratings.

Girling Street is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Girling Street accommodates up to five people in a mid terrace house situated centrally within the town of Sudbury. The service was situated within close proximity of the shopping town centre.

The registered manager at Girling Street was also the registered manager at another of the providers locations, which was situated a third of a mile from Girling Street. The two services share the same staff team and many of the non service user specific records we looked at, such as team meeting minutes were the same across both services. Therefore there are similarities in the inspection reports for both locations. We inspected the other service the day after the inspection at Girling Street.

The care service had 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 lived as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People continued to be provided with regular opportunities to express their wishes, aspirations and preferences regarding how they lived their daily lives. People were supported to make their own decisions about the care and support they received. Regular meetings continued to be held between people and their keyworker to ascertain their individual thoughts and choices. People continued to be supported to access a wide range of personalised activities and social opportunities. Staff supported people to access the local community and encouraged activities which promoted their independence.

Staff continued to demonstrate a good understanding of safeguarding and how to report concerns. Sufficient numbers of staff continued to be in post and rotas were written around the needs of the people who lived at the service. Recruitment procedures continued to be effective and thorough. This included pre-employment checks to ensure new staff were suitable to work at the home. Staff had a good understanding of risks associated with people's care needs and how to support them.

Medicines continued to be stored and administered safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed. Weekly and monthly audits were carried out of medicines to ensure they were managed in line with good practice guidelines. Infection control practice was good and helped to reduce the risks associated with poor cleanliness systems.

Good leadership continued to be in place that provided staff with the necessary support and training to make sure people received good quality care. The service had good links with external healthcare professionals. People received necessary support from these services when they needed help. Appropriate records were kept of any appointments people attended.

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 service that was caring. Staff knew people's needs well and were responsive and supportive. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. Staff sought to gain people's views.