About the service: ‘Royal Mencap Society - Silverhill Bungalow’ 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, both were looked at during this inspection.

The care home accommodates up to 6 younger or older adults living with learning disabilities and / or autism. At the time of our inspection 5 people lived there.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿ Improvements were required to the management oversight and review of incidents involving behaviours that challenged to help ensure the service identified any lessons learnt and worked towards continual improvement.

¿ Risk assessments and care plans were not always in place for the care people received or the equipment people used.

¿People’s needs were assessed and monitored and people’s diverse needs were supported. However, the assessment tool used to assess risks from pressure damage was not one that effectively considered all contributing risks.

¿People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives with staff that supported them in the least restrictive way possible; this was because some decisions had not been made in line with the principles of the MCA and not all restrictions had been considered in line with DoLS.

¿Some medicines required mixing with food or drink. When this was done advice had not been obtained as to the safety of these methods. Actions were needed to improve the storage and labelling of one prescription cream. Other medicines were stored safely and people received their medicines when they needed them.

¿Staff were recruited safely and there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. The provider had taken steps to help prevent people from the risk of abuse.

¿The service was clean and steps had been taken to help protect people from the risks of infection.

¿Other risks for example, environmental risks and those associated with the use of transport were identified so as to enable risks to be effectively managed for people's safety.

¿Staff received support and training to help them in their roles, however some training had not been refreshed since 2010 with no competency checks evident in these areas.

¿Staff made referrals to other health and social care professionals for their advice and guidance regarding people’s care when needed. People had access to healthcare services as required.

¿People had choices of food and drink to help them maintain a balanced diet.

¿People liked their home and were happy with how it had been decorated to reflect their individual tastes.

¿People felt relaxed and liked the staff who cared for them. People’s views were considered when their care was planned. Staff took steps to ensure people’s privacy and dignity was respected. People’s independence was promoted.

¿People received personalised and responsive care and enjoyed how they spent their time at the service. No-one had a complaint to make however, information was available for people on how to complain should they have need to. People’s communication needs were identified and met.

¿Policies and procedures helped to ensure care was delivered in line with current standards. Staff and relatives reported the management team to be open and approachable. People, relatives and staff felt listened to and had opportunities to be involved in the service; more information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection:

¿The service was previously registered with CQC under a different name. This is the first inspection of the service under its current registration with the CQC.

Why we inspected:

¿This is a scheduled inspection based on the service’s registration date with the CQC.

Follow up:

¿We will continue to review information we receive about the service until the next scheduled inspection. If we receive any information of concern we may inspect sooner