Archived: Serenity House

Serenity House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or 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.

Serenity House can accommodate up to three people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection two people were living at the home. 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.

People felt safe staying at Serenity House and risks to people were minimized through risk assessments. There were plans in place for foreseeable emergencies.

Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working at Serenity House to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse. There were enough staff to keep people safe.

People were supported to take their medicines safely when required from suitably trained staff. Medication administration records (MAR) confirmed people had received their medicines as prescribed.

People received varied meals including a choice of fresh food and drinks. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes and went out of their way to provide people with what they wanted.

New staff completed an induction designed to ensure they understood their new role before being permitted to work unsupervised. Staff received regular support and one to one sessions or supervision to discuss areas of development.

Staff were knowledgeable about the complex needs of the people using the service. They completed a wide range of training and felt it supported them in their job role.

People were cared for with kindness and compassion. Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to receive care and support. This helped ensure people received personalised care in a way that met their individual needs. People were involved in their care plans and reviews.

People were supported and encouraged to make choices and had access to a range of activities. Staff knew what was important to people and encouraged them to be as independent as possible. Staff sought consent from people before providing care or support.

A complaints procedure was in place. There were appropriate management arrangements in place. Staff felt supported by the provider and assistant manager and staff meetings took place. Regular audits of the service were carried out to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

We spoke with the two people using the service and looked at their care and support records. We also spoke with the provider (who is also the manager) and three staff. This is a summary of what we found -

Is the service safe?

People were supported to take planned risks to promote their independence and staff were provided with appropriate information on which to base decisions. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a clear understanding of people's support and risk management plans. The provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

The provider ensured that all staff received appropriate professional development. People who lived in the home confirmed that staff had the right knowledge and skills to support them. One person told us that since coming to Serenity House they had managed to 'Change my life, turn my life around'. We were told how their relationship with their family had also improved. The other person was equally positive about the service.

People were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink. Staff provided people with different options, including the use of pictorial menus and shopping lists, so that they were able to make an informed choice. People told us about favourite meals that they liked to cook and staff said this was encouraged and supported.

Is the service caring?

We observed that staff treated people with dignity and respect. There was a relaxed atmosphere in the home and staff communicated well with the people who used the service and promoted an inclusive, supportive environment.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home and each person had a detailed care plan, which showed that they had been involved in agreeing how staff would support them. We saw that the service liaised with other health and social care professionals, which helped to ensure that the delivery of care was responsive to people's needs and based on up to date information and guidance. The records showed that any concerns were followed up and appropriate action was taken.

Is the service well led?

People who used the service were asked their views about their support and these were acted on. People told us that house meetings and other discussions took place and that they could talk with staff or the provider about any concerns. There were clear lines of accountability within the service. We saw that regular checks of the quality and safety of the service took place and were recorded.

The person we spoke with confirmed that staff involved them in discussions about their support. We observed how risks, benefits and alternative support options were discussed and explained in a way that the person was able to understand and participate in. It was clear that the assessment, planning and delivery of their support was developed with them and centred on them as an individual.

Medicines were kept safely and appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to the recording of medicine. The person we spoke with confirmed that staff had the right knowledge and skills to support them. They told us how they were involved in the recruitment and selection of staff and that agency staff were not used in the home, in accordance with their needs and wishes. We saw that staffing levels reflected the assessed needs of people using the service, as identified in their support plans.

The person told us about the complaints procedure and how they had been supported to use it. They said the provider had responded to their complaint and that they had been satisfied with the outcome.