Lansdowne Road (67-71)

Lansdowne Road (67-71) is a 26-bed care home for people with learning disabilities and or autistic people. At the time of the inspection, the service supported 26 people.

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. At this inspection, the provider had made sufficient improvements and this breach in regulation had been met.

The provider’s systems and processes for assessing people’s individual care and support needs, including known risks, required improvement to ensure staff received sufficient training to deliver safe and effective care. The management team agreed and assured us improvements would be implemented.

People were supported with their health needs and accessed health care services and screening. We found some examples where requests had been made to the GP for referrals to external healthcare professionals which had not been followed up or actioned. Causing a delay in people accessing the services required.

Support plans and risk assessments provided staff with guidance of how to meet people’s individual needs and safety. We found some examples that lacked detail. However, we were assured from speaking with staff that they knew people well and this was a recording issue. We spoke with the registered manager who took action to make improvements.

The provider had strengthened their procedures in reviewing incidents and staff communication systems and processes. This supported a learning culture where incidents were analysed, and lessons learnt. The registered manager was supported by senior leaders who had continued oversight of the service and provided leadership in the ongoing development of the service.

There were enough care staff to meet people’s individual needs and safety. People were supported by a consistent, experienced and competent staff team who had been recruited safely, and who knew them well. Where people received additional commissioned staff support, we found this was being provided.

The deployment of housekeeping staff was identified as a concern. Not having housekeeping staff over a 7-day period had impacted on the cleanliness of the service. The provider acted promptly, and changes were being made.

Staff received ongoing safeguarding training and understood their roles and responsibilities to protect people from risks and avoidable harm. People had access to safeguarding information and received opportunities to support their awareness of what safeguarding means.

People received their prescribed medicines when required. Medicines were managed following best practice guidance.

Where people lacked the mental capacity to consent to specific decisions about their care, an assessment and best interest decision was made. Where people had a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard authorisation with conditions, these were being met lawfully.

People received care and support that was personalised. People were supported to identify personal goals and aspirations. Independence was promoted and people led active and fulfilling lives. For some people this meant attending college courses, having paid work, being supported to vote, have meaningful relationships and accessing community leisure and recreational opportunities and pursing interests and hobbies.

The service was registered before ‘CQC’s Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance for providers was developed. Although the size of the service was above guidance. The management and staff team worked with people to offer choice, dignity and independence. The management and staff team worked with people to improve the environment and make effective use of the space available.

Staff were kind, caring, and compassionate. They clearly knew and understood what was important to people and demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting individuals to realise their full potential and live fulfilling lives.

People were fully involved in discussions and decisions about their care. This included opportunities to share their experience of the care and support they received and be involved in the development of the service. There were no restrictions on visiting.