Archived: Fenwick Close

Updated 29 March 2019

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

Inspection team: One inspector carried out the inspection.

Service and service type: Fenwick Close is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

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.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. The registered manager was responsible for the management of all three bungalows at Fenwick Close. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection: We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small. We needed to be sure people and staff would be in.

What we did: Providers are required to send us key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We reviewed all the information we held about the service, this included notifications of significant changes or events.

We checked for feedback we received from members of the public, local authorities and clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). We also checked Companies House records.

During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, a team leader and two care workers. The people who used the service could not verbally communicate with us. So, we spent time with people to observe how they were supported. We reviewed two people's care records, two staff personnel files, audits and other records about the quality and safety of the service.

After our visit we had telephone conversations with one relative and an advocate.

We requested additional evidence to be sent to us after our inspection. This was received and used as part of our inspection.

Updated 29 March 2019

About the service: Fenwick Close was a purpose-built bungalow in a residential street. It was registered for the support of up to three people. Three people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service: The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support through promoting choice, involving people in their local community and promoting their independence. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

People’s received personalised care. A relative and an advocate said people were well cared for. People and staff had positive relationships; we observed many meaningful interactions between people and staff.

A relative and staff felt the home was safe. Staff knew about safeguarding and the whistle blowing procedures; they knew how to raise concerns if required. Staffing levels were sufficient to allow staff to support people to meet their individual needs. New staff were recruited safely.

Incidents and accidents were monitored effectively; the findings were analysed to checks for trends and patterns.

The provider completed checks to maintain a clean and safe environment. People received their medicines safely.

Staff were supported well and had access to the training they needed for their role. 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. Staff had a very good understanding of people’s needs; this enabled them to effectively support people to make choices and decisions. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and to access healthcare services.

People’s needs were assessed to identify how they wanted to be supported; religious, social and lifestyle needs were considered. The information gathered was used to develop personalised care plans. People were supported to choose and participate in activities; they were also supported to work towards achieving their aspirations.

The registered manager was effective in managing the home. The provider had been restructuring its registered services, leading to regular changes in staff. The provider continued to operate a structured and effective approach to quality assurance. People, relatives and staff had opportunities to give feedback.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Rating at last inspection: Good (the last report was published on 12 July 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor this service and inspect in line with our re-inspection schedule for services rated good.