Ballards Ash

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

People were being supported by staff that had been recruited safely and provided with specialist training for their roles. All staff completed training on supporting people with learning disabilities and specialist behaviour support. Staff also had support and guidance from the provider positive behaviour support team who helped write personalised care plans and risk assessments.

People had their own rooms which were personalised to people’s hobbies and interests and people had access to various communal rooms. There was a large garden which was accessible from the ground floor. The service was located on a bus route however, staff said there was some difficulty for people to walk to the bus stop due to a path not being suitable. Leaders said they were liaising with local councils to try and improve access for people.

Some people had their own cars which helped them access the local community, however, there had been some issues making sure there were enough staff available who could drive. This had impacted on people’s access to the community and their ability to follow some interests. In addition, it was not clear from staffing rotas how people were being provided with their commissioned staff support. Leaders said they would take action to review staffing rotas. There had been some challenges recruiting staff, however, at the time of this assessment, recruitment had been successful.

Health and safety checks were completed regularly, and the provider had a maintenance team who were available to carry out repairs. The service was clean and people were encouraged to carry out light domestic tasks such as cleaning their own rooms where possible.

People’s needs were regularly assessed, and care plans and risk assessments were reviewed when needs changed. To manage risk safely there were various safety measures in place which were restrictive to others. There was a lack of evidence to demonstrate these safety measures were regularly reviewed to ensure they were least restrictive and appropriate.

Care plans were written respectfully and provided staff with guidance on how to support people safely and effectively. People’s health needs were known by staff and support was provided to access various healthcare services which included local GP surgeries. People had their medicines as prescribed and staff had been provided with training on medicines management.

Prior to our assessment a new manager was appointed. The current registered manager was supporting them to have a detailed handover before they took over registration for the service. There had been some changes with management leading up to this assessment and staff said it was good to have a permanent manager appointed. Leaders were described as being approachable and knowledgeable and present at the service. Staff knew how to report any concerns and were confident actions would be taken.

Governance systems were effective and regular quality and safety checks were being completed by various staff and leaders. However, incidents and accidents lacked some details about what had happened and follow up management actions. This shortfall had been identified by the new manager and steps had been taken to raise this with staff. Statutory notifications had been submitted to Care Quality Commission (CQC) as appropriate and the rating from the previous CQC assessment was displayed at the service and on the location’s website.