Archived: Real Life Options - 26 Elsdon Mews

The inspection team consisted of a lead inspector and an expert by experience who had experience of learning disability services. We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five key questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with the relatives of people at the service, staff supporting them, and from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

We saw a copy of the safeguarding adults at risk policy and a guide for staff on how to report safeguarding incidents. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Relatives we spoke with told us they thought the service was a safe place for their family member to live at.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Whilst applications had been made to the local authority to request a DoL in respect of some people using the service, the provider had failed to notify the CQC of issues involving the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards. We discussed this with the home manager who was aware of the recent Supreme Court decision to clarify what constitutes a deprivation of liberty and agreed to submit the relevant notifications to the CQC.

Is the service effective?

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare, however not all of the support plans and risk assessments were signed by the person using the service or their representative and also not all were signed and dated by all members of staff. We found that people who used the service were receiving the care and support they needed. The staff we spoke with could describe how they met the assessed needs of the people they were providing with care. Relatives and health and social care professionals told us people received safe and effective care. Relatives acting on behalf of people using the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their relative's care and treatment and understood the care and treatment choices available to them.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. Relatives and healthcare professionals told us they were happy with the care provided at Elsdon Mews. A relative told us 'We think the staff are very caring and they have a good understanding of x's needs.'

Is the service responsive?

Records showed that people's preferences, interests and needs had been taken into account and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. People had access to activities that were important to them and were supported to maintain relationships with relatives and make new friends. Relatives knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. A relative told us 'We as a family are very satisfied.'

Is the service well-led?

The home was being managed by a person who had been in post since March 2014, and was collating all of the necessary documentation to submit her application to the CQC as the registered manager for this service.

The provider undertook regular audits to check the quality of service, including the views of family members and professionals responsible for the care of people. The provider may find it useful to note that some of the shift handover notes had not been fully completed and some of the gaps we noted in some people's records and not picked up.

People and family members said they were happy with the care and they did not raise any concerns with us. They commented: 'I have no concerns'; and, 'Staff are very caring'.

The manager held regular team meetings with staff and asked people and their relatives their opinions on how the service was run. Regular checks of the premises took place to ensure it was safe and suitable for the people who lived there.

We saw that staff consulted with people before they provided care and support.

People had opportunities to go out to activities they enjoyed. We saw care staff supported each person with their specific individual needs while respecting their dignity and choices.

We found there were sufficient staff available to meet people's needs.

The home had systems in place to regularly check the quality of the care and other services such as catering, the environment and fire safety. Actions had been taken where issues had been identified.