Care service description

Adrian House is a small family run home for men with learning disabilities and is registered to provide accommodation and personal care. It currently provides this service for six men. The accommodation is in two joined terrace houses in the Chapeltown area of Leeds.

Rating at last inspection

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

Rating at this inspection

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated

People told us they felt safe and secure living at this service and their health care needs were met. It was evident from our discussions with staff they had an in-depth knowledge of people’s care and support needs. Staff knew about people’s interests and how they preferred to spend their time. There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and competent staff. Care plans were detailed and person centred. People were empowered to take responsibility and were involved in the running of the service. There was evidence of checks carried out to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Care service description

Adrian House is a small family run home for men with learning disabilities and is registered to provide accommodation and personal care. It currently provides this service for six men. The accommodation is in two joined terrace houses in the Chapeltown area of Leeds.

Rating at last inspection

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

Rating at this inspection

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated

People told us they felt safe and secure living at this service and their health care needs were met. It was evident from our discussions with staff they had an in-depth knowledge of people’s care and support needs. Staff knew about people’s interests and how they preferred to spend their time. There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and competent staff. Care plans were detailed and person centred. People were empowered to take responsibility and were involved in the running of the service. There was evidence of checks carried out to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The inspection visit was carried out by one inspector. During the inspection, we spoke with the home manager, deputy manager, care staff, people who used the service and relatives. We observed staff interactions with people who lived at the home, and looked at monitoring the quality of service management records.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected.

We used the information to answer the five key questions we always ask;

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people who used the service and the staff told us.

Is the service Safe?

We did not look at regulations under this domain at this inspection.

Is the service Effective?

We did not look at regulations under this domain at this inspection.

Is the service Caring?

We found staff we spoke with demonstrated a good knowledge of people’s needs and were able to explain how individuals preferred their care and support to be delivered.

We found the atmosphere within the home was warm and friendly and we saw staff approached individual people in a way which showed they knew the person well and knew how best to assist them.

Is the service Responsive?

We did not look at regulations under this domain at this inspection.

Is the service Well led?

We saw the home held meetings for people who used the service to give them the opportunity to share their views and make suggestions for improvements to the service.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service that people received. We looked at a selection of reports which showed the provider had assessed and monitored the quality of service provision.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected. We observed staff treating people with respect, being polite and courteous. There was a supportive atmosphere between staff and the people who used the service. People’s preferences and experiences were taken into account in relation to how care and support was delivered. One person told us, “They respect my decision about my own health and wellbeing.” Another person said, “I can do what I like to do.”

People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. The care plans contained a good level of information setting out exactly how each person should be supported to ensure that their needs were met. One person told us, “I feel settled and I enjoy living here, I am happy here.” Another person said, “I am happy living here.”

Medicines were prescribed and given to people appropriately. People we spoke with said that they received their medication on time and when they needed it.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.

There were quality monitoring programmes in place, which included people giving feedback about their care, support and treatment. This provided a good overview of the quality of the service’s provided. However, this was not always documented.

People told us that staff explained all procedures and treatment to them and respected their decisions about care. We saw evidence of their choices and decisions recorded in their care plans. People who used the service told us they were happy living at the home and they were well looked after.

People we spoke with told us the home was always clean, tidy and they had no concerns with the hygiene. A visitor we spoke with said, “The home is always clean and tidy and there are never any bad odours.”

People we spoke with told us that there were enough staff.

We were only able to speak to three people who use the service at Adrian House. This is because the other people were out at either day centre, visiting family or out with their key worker.

The people we spoke with told us that they were happy at Adrian house and that they viewed it as their home. Two of the men have been living at Adrian House for over twenty years.

One person told us about their recent birthday celebrations and we saw their cards displayed in the lounge.

People told us that they were happy living at Adrian House. They told us about the opportunities they had to remain independent.

Staff told us that they provide good care and they support people mainly with their psychological needs rather than personal needs. We were given examples of how people's health and welfare had improved since living at Adrian House.