Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


1 Uppingham Gardens, Reading.

1 Uppingham Gardens in Reading is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs, caring for adults under 65 yrs and learning disabilities. The last inspection date here was 22nd April 2020

1 Uppingham Gardens is managed by Voyage 1 Limited who are also responsible for 289 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      1 Uppingham Gardens
      Caversham
      Reading
      RG4 6SP
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01189462216
    Website:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2020-04-22
    Last Published 2017-08-30

Local Authority:

    Reading

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

27th July 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on the 27 July 2017 and was unannounced.

1 Uppingham Gardens is a care home which is registered to provide care (without nursing) for up to seven people with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were six people living in the home. The home is a large detached building situated on a housing estate on the outskirts of Reading. It is located near to local amenities and public transport.

There was a registered manager for the service. 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. The registered manager was also registered at another nearby home run by the provider organisation. She split her time between the two homes but was always available for advice and support.

The recruitment and selection process ensured people were supported by staff of good character. There was a sufficient amount of qualified and trained staff to meet people’s needs safely. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns they had about the care and welfare of people to protect them from abuse.

People were provided with effective care from a core of dedicated staff who had received support through supervision, staff meetings and training. People’s care plans detailed how they wanted their needs to be met. Risk assessments identified risks associated with personal and specific behavioural and/or health related issues. They helped to promote people’s independence whilst minimising the risks. Staff treated people with kindness and respect and had regular contact with people’s families, where possible and appropriate, to make sure they were fully informed about the care and support their relative received.

The service had taken the necessary action to ensure they were working in a way which recognised and maintained people’s rights. They understood the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and consent issues which related to the people in their care.

Staff were supported to receive the training and development they needed to care for and support people’s individual needs. People received very good quality care. The provider had taken steps to periodically assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. This was undertaken by designated staff under the supervision of the home manager and the deputy manager. Quality was monitored through provider and internal audits, care reviews and requesting feedback from people and their representatives.

27th August 2013 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

During our last visit, we identified concerns about people’s care and welfare needs not being met. At this inspection we found the provider had taken appropriate action to ensure people who use the service experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs.

At our last inspection we identified continuing concerns about a lack of adequate maintenance of the premises in several areas, including paintwork, floorings and in communal bathrooms. At this inspection we found the provider had taken appropriate action to ensure that all the maintenance issues we identified had been addressed.

We previously identified concerns about people’s personal records, because they were not accurate. At this inspection we looked at three people’s care records. We found they had all been updated with the correct information about each person's care needs.

The provider was reporting applicable incidents as required by the regulations. This meant we could effectively monitor the quality and safety of care people who use the service received.

We spoke with the person managing the service on the day of our inspection. Throughout this report, we have referred to this person as the acting manager. The location did not have a registered manager at the time of our inspection.

19th December 2012 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We spoke with one person who uses the service and four of their relatives or representatives. They told us they or their relatives had been involved in the planning of their care. Care plans were person centred and tailored to meet the needs of the individual.

People who use the service had limited opportunities to undertake activities of their choosing in the community. Activities undertaken in the home included baking and aromatherapy.

People who use the service or their relatives told us people felt safe. Staff were able to demonstrate a good knowledge of recognising the signs of abuse and what action to take if they had any concerns. One relative told us they “could not fault their care”. Another said “they treat my relative well”.

The provider had not taken steps to provide care in an environment that was adequately maintained. We saw problems with flooring, stained sinks and cracked and peeling paint work.

Staff had regular training, but not supervision or appraisals. Staff told us they felt well supported by managers and the training they did receive enabled them to meet the needs of the people who use the service.

The provider had appropriate procedures in place to monitor the quality of the service they provide. They did an annual satisfaction survey and regular quality audits. They did not always take action when any concerns were highlighted for example maintainence of the property.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection took

place on 15 and 20 July, and was unannounced.

 

1 Uppingham Gardens is

a care home which offers accommodation for people who require nursing or

personal care. Although registered to provide a facility for up to seven

people, the location currently has six people using the service.

 

 

The home is

required to have a registered manager. The manager has been in post since

November 2014, and has completed registration with the CQC. 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.

Staff knew how to

keep people safe by reporting concerns promptly through a procedure that was

displayed in the office. Systems and processes were in place to recruit staff

who were suitable to work in the service and to protect people against the

risk of abuse. There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained and

experienced staff to ensure people’s needs were met.

 

We observed good

caring practice by the staff. Relatives of people using the service said they

were very happy with the support and care provided. People and where appropriate

their relatives confirmed they were fully involved in the planning and review

of their care. Care plans focussed on the individual and recorded their

personal preferences well. They reflected people’s needs, and detailed risks

that were specific to the person, with guidance on how to manage them

effectively.

People told us

communication with the service was good and they felt listened to. All

relatives spoken with said they thought people were treated with respect,

preserving their dignity at all times.

People were supported

with their medicines by suitably trained, qualified and experienced staff.

Medicines were managed safely and securely. We were unable to find the protocols

for PRN medicines; this was raised with the registered manager, who assured

us this would be written up immediately. PRN medicines are used on an as need

basis. Staff were able to verbally describe the protocol, and the Medication Administration

Record (MAR) sheets did not suggest disproportionate usage.

People who could not

make specific decisions for themselves had their legal rights protected.

People’s care plans showed that when decisions had been made about their

care, where they lacked capacity, these had been made in the person’s best

interests. The provider was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of

Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The DoLS provide legal protection for vulnerable

people who are, or may become, deprived of their liberty.

People received care

and support from staff who had the appropriate skills and knowledge to care

for them. All staff received comprehensive induction, training and support

from experienced members of staff. They felt supported by the registered

manager and said they were listened to if they raised concerns.

The quality of the service was monitored regularly by the provider and the Operations Manager. A thorough quality assurance audit was completed quarterly with an action plan generated, and followed up during identified timescales. Feedback was encouraged from people, visitors and stakeholders and used to improve and make changes to the service.

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Additions: