Care service description

Chesterberry is a care home for people who have sensory impairment, learning disabilities and or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of the inspection there were 7 people living at the home.

Rating at last inspection

At our last inspection in February 2016 we rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

What life is like for people using this service:

• People were kept safe and secure from risk of harm. Potential risks to people had been assessed and managed appropriately by the provider. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed and were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to ensure that risk of harm was minimised.

• Staff had been recruited appropriately and had received relevant training so that they were able to support people with their individual care and support needs.

• Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

• People were treated with kindness and compassion. People’s rights to privacy were respected by the staff that supported them and their dignity was maintained. People were supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care and support needs.

• People’s choices and independence were respected and promoted. Staff responded appropriately to people’s support needs. People received care from staff that knew them well.

• People using the service, their relatives and staff were confident about approaching the registered manager if they needed to. The provider had effective auditing systems in place to monitor the effectiveness and quality of service provision. The views of people and their relatives on the quality of the service, were gathered and used to support service development.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated as Good overall.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

This inspection took place on 13 January 2016 and was unannounced. Due to the specific needs of the people living at Chesterberry we returned for a second inspection visit on 9 February 2016 with a British Sign Language (BSL) Interpreter and an added relay Interpreter to support the interview communication process. We found that when using the relay interpreter it still proved difficult to obtain comments from people.

At our last inspection on 5 November 2013, the provider was meeting all the regulations that we assessed.

Chesterberry is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing and personal care for adults with a sensory impairment, learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living at the location.

There was an acting manager in post who had submitted their registration documentation to CQC and was awaiting confirmation. 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.

People were safe and secure. Relatives believed their family members were kept safe. Risks to people had been assessed appropriately. Staff understood the different types of abuse and knew what action they would take if they thought a person was at risk of harm. The provider had processes and systems in place that kept people safe and protected them from the risk of harm

Staff had been recruited appropriately and had received relevant training so that they were able to support people with their individual needs.

People safely received their medicines as prescribed to them.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support. Staff understood the circumstances when the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) should be followed.

People were supported to have food that they enjoyed and meal times were flexible to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to stay healthy and accessed health care professionals as required.

People were treated with kindness and compassion and there was positive communication and interaction with staff.

People’s right to privacy was promoted and people’s independence was encouraged where possible.

People received care from staff that knew them well. People benefitted from opportunities to take part in activities that they enjoyed and what was important to them.

Staff were aware of the signs that would indicate that a person was unhappy, so that they could take appropriate action.

The provider had management systems in place to audit, assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.

Seven people had lived at the home for a number of years. The people were either deaf or had a hearing impairment. People also had a learning disability and or a mental health diagnosis. Some staff who worked at the home were also deaf. To help gain people’s and staff’s views we used British Sign Language interpreters to ask questions during the inspection.

We spoke with four people and one family member. We also made observations throughout the day and spoke with three members of staff. People were asked questions using sign language and responded by signing. One person told us, “I love it here, it’s much better than my last home”. Another person told us, “I like it here, the staff are nice”. A family member told us, “I am very pleased with the care, I think things have improved since they (the person) went there”.

We looked at four care records. Every person had an individual support plan. Consent was continually sought from people in a way that they could communicate their response. Family members were involved in important decisions. This meant that people’s care was planned and delivered in a way they wanted.

People’s needs were assessed and personalised support plans developed. Individual risk assessments were available. This meant that staff had access to the information they required to meet the person’s needs.

Procedures were in place for obtaining storing and dispensing of medication. This ensures that people were protected from the risks associated with unsafe use of medication.

Robust recruitment procedures were in place. New staff underwent induction and a probationary period. This ensured that staff were of good character and had the knowledge, skills and experience to meet people’s needs.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. Quality audits were undertaken and views were sought from people, their family and staff. However, recent records were not always readily available on the day of our inspection.

There were seven people living at Chesterberry home at the time of the inspection. We noted that all people living at the home are deaf and that seven out of the eleven staff are also deaf. During our visit we spoke with two people who use the service and five staff members when necessary this was done through interpreters using British Sign Language (BSL). We also reviewed care records and made observations throughout the visit.

People using the service were asked in a number of ways how they wanted their care to be delivered and their dignity and privacy was promoted and maintained.

Effective, safe and appropriate care was received by people using the service, to meet their needs. One person who we asked if they liked living in the home signed with their thumb across their chin to say ‘it’s nice’.

There are suitable arrangements in place to ensure that people are safeguarded against the risk of abuse. People living at the home feel safe, and are confident that staff will protect them.

Evidence we gathered indicated that staffing levels were adequate and that staff were supported through appropriate training. People using the service told us that there was enough staff to meet their needs. One member of staff told us they really liked working here and the people using the service were ‘so much fun, and exciting to work with’.

Systems and processes were in place to monitor the quality of service and to ensure people benefit from the service provided.

There were no service user's available for us to speak to when we visited the home. We gathered information from the home manager and the operations manager to evidence our review.