About the service:

Ordinary Life Project Association – 12 Addington Close is a residential care home that was providing personal care for two people with learning disabilities and dementia at the time of the inspection. The home is registered to provide care for up to three people.

People’s experience of using this service:

Risk assessments were in place, to protect people from the likelihood of risks to their health or safety occurring.

Medicines were managed safely. The home had worked with the pharmacist to ensure that people’s medicines were reviewed and continued to be effective.

People were supported to live healthier lives. This included achieving a healthy weight range, also three-monthly dementia progress appointments with a visiting healthcare professional.

People were encouraged to follow their interests. One person attended music and singing group sessions outside of the home. We observed another person colouring. There was an interactive media device that could be used to select music and sports online that both people enjoyed watching and listening to.

One person went to an art group and produced artwork at home that was framed and presented in the living room. The art work was also used to create seasonal gifts, gift tags and cards for friends and relatives.

There were photographic diaries of people’s social interactions and achievements. These included photographs of people at their favourite places of interest.

One person preferred to spend their time indoors and creative ways to encourage their social involvement were found. This included bringing snow indoors for them to build an indoor snowman.

The home was clean, tidy and free from odours throughout.

There were photographic signs on the doors to the bathroom, laundry room, and kitchen. These were to help people orientate themselves around the home.

Bedrooms had full length glass doors leading to the accessible garden. The garden had a decking walkway and raised borders, to encourage people to be involved in the gardening. One person’s relative was a landscape gardener and provided the home with plants throughout the year. The home employed the services of a gardener to ensure this area was maintained.

Technology was used to support people to maintain contact with their family. One person had family living overseas. There had been attempts to support them to Skype with their family, but it was found that due to the time difference, email communication was more effective.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and staff enjoyed working at the home. They had access to a range of training based on the needs of the people they support. Staff had regular supervision meetings with the registered manager or the senior carer.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were applied to the care planning, with consideration for consent and capacity throughout. There were mental capacity assessments in place for specific decisions, such as having the flu vaccination; to assess people’s capacity to consent to these.

There were quality assurance processes in place. These were to audit the service and identify where there were any areas for improvement.

The service met the characteristics of Good in all areas. More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: This was our first inspection under the current inspection methodology. The home was previously inspected in September 2013 and was found to be compliant. The service had a period of dormancy during this time, where there were no people being supported.

Why we inspected:

This was a scheduled comprehensive inspection.

Follow up:

We will monitor all intelligence received about the service, to inform when the next inspection should take place.

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

There were two people living at this service at the time of our visit. We spent time talking to both people and staff. We also viewed care records.

We saw that people's needs had been assessed before moving into the service. We saw that each people were encouraged to be involved in their support plans.

People told us they felt respected. During our visit, we saw staff were polite and professional in their manner at all times. One person told us they "liked all the staff".

People in the service were protected from the risk of abuse as far as possible because the service had taken all reasonable steps to identify and prevent potential abuse from happening. Both people told us they felt safe living in the service.

Staff were respectful at all times during our visit. For example, knocking on doors before entering people's rooms. We also saw that care records were written in a respectful and dignified way.

We saw that staff were relaxed, supportive and patient. They explained and reassured people where necessary. Staff were knowledgable about people’s support needs.

People and their families were encouraged to be involved in how the service was run and how their support plans were developed. One relative we spoke with told us they were "very happy with the service" and "couldn't speak highly enough of the staff".

There were two people living at this service. During the inspection, we spent time observing care practices, talking to people and staff and looking at records.

We saw that peoples’ needs had been assessed, with support and treatment planned and delivered in line with individual plans. We saw that risk assessments were used to ensure safety and welfare and there was a happy and relaxed atmosphere in the house.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken all reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. People told us they felt safe.

Staffing was of sufficient numbers and experience to provide good support to anyone who lives at this service. People told us they felt respected. We observed staff behaving in a polite and professional manner. One person said “staff listened” to them, whilst the other person said they were “happy here”.

People in this service were supported to make their own decisions at all times. Care records described people's individual needs and how those needs were to be met. Information was clearly recorded in a respectful and dignified manner, although the care plans had no signatures on them to denote anyone other than the professionals involved had seen them.

People enjoyed a full range of activities and leisure pursuits.

People we spoke with told us they were happy with the care provided at 12 Addington Close. People said they were involved in the day to day decision making.

We saw that people were relaxed and comfortable within their environment. The service was homely, well maintained, and clean and tidy throughout. However, the carpet in the inner hallway was badly stained, which detracted from the high standard of the rest of the house.

People spoke positively about the staff. They said they were competent, and that they felt safe. One person commented “I have no trouble with the staff.” Staff confirmed that they received appropriate training and felt qualified to carry out their duties.

We saw that systems were in place for monitoring health and safety and the quality of the service. Peoples’ views were sought on the service provision.