Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..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


St Philips Close, Leeds.

St Philips Close in Leeds is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults under 65 yrs and learning disabilities. The last inspection date here was 31st March 2020

St Philips Close is managed by Voyage 1 Limited who are also responsible for 289 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      St Philips Close
      1 St Philips Close
      Leeds
      LS10 3TR
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01132778069
    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 2020-03-31
    Last Published 2017-07-20

Local Authority:

    Leeds

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.

30th May 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

St Philips Close is owned and managed by Voyage 1 Limited and is registered to provide accommodation and personal care. The building is purpose built and provides facilities and living accommodation for up to eight people who lived with a learning disability and/or a physical disability. There is level access throughout the service and there is a parking area outside for a small number of cars.

We carried out the inspection of St Philips Close on 30 May 2017. At the time of our inspection, there were seven people using the service. This was an unannounced inspection.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The home had a registered manager. 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.

People were protected from the risk of potential abuse because staff knew how to recognise the signs and what action to take to safeguard them. The risks to people were managed in a way that promoted their independence. However, we observed a staff practice that put people at minimal risk. People were cared for by sufficient numbers of staff who were recruited safely. People received their medicines as prescribed by staff who were appropriately trained.

People's care needs were met by skilled staff who were supported in their role to provide effective care and support. 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. Staff had applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in their care practices. People were referred for a Deprivation of Liberty safeguard appropriately. People were encouraged to make as many choices about their care as possible. People had access to a choice of meals and were encouraged to eat and drink sufficient amounts. People had their nutritional needs met. People were assisted by staff to access relevant healthcare services when needed.

People were cared for by staff who were kind and sympathetic to their needs. Staff had extensive knowledge of people and their background and preferences. People's right to privacy and dignity was respected by staff. People were encouraged to maintain relationships that were important to them.

People were encouraged to be involved in their care assessments and had access to an advocate to represent them. The service provided was person-centred to meet people's specific needs. Staff were able to recognise when people were unhappy and this was explored and resolved where possible. The provider had systems in place to record and monitor complaints. People were asked what activities they would like to be involved in and staff supported them to achieve these goals.

People were supported to have a say in how the home was run. The home was run by a registered manager who was supported in their role by the operations manager. Staff felt supported in their role by the registered manager. The provider had effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided to people. We observed there was a happy and person-centred culture in the home.

19th February 2015 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection took place on 19 February 2015 and was unannounced. St Philips Close is a care home for people with learning disabilities. It can accommodate up to 8 people in two purpose built properties. Each person’s room is provided with all necessary aids and adaptations to suit their individual requirements. There are well appointed communal areas for dining and relaxation. There is also a garden area to the rear of the home. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living in the home.

The home had a Registered Manager. A Registered Manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law, as does the provider.

People told us they felt safe in the home and we saw there were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. People were protected against the risk of unlawful or excessive control or restraint because the provider had made suitable arrangements for staff to respond appropriately to people who communicated through their behaviour/actions.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and they were able to demonstrate a good understanding of when best interest decisions needed to be made to safeguard people.

We found people were cared for, or supported by, sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.

Suitable arrangements were in place and people were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met.

People’s physical health was monitored as required. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms so appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made.

People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. The support plans contained a good level of information setting out exactly how each person should be supported to ensure their needs were met. Care and support was tailored to meet people’s individual needs and staff knew people well. The support plans included risk assessments. Staff had good relationships with the people living at the home and the atmosphere was happy and relaxed.

We observed interactions between staff and people living in the home and staff were kind and respectful to people when they were supporting them. Staff were aware of the values of the service and knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity.

A wide range of activities were provided both in-house and in the community. We saw people were involved and consulted about all aspects of the service including what improvements they would like to see and suggestions for activities. Staff told us people were encouraged to maintain contact with friends and family.

The manager investigated and responded to people’s complaints, according to the provider’s complaints procedure. People we spoke with did not raise any complaints or concerns about living at the home.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Staff were supported to challenge when they felt there could be improvements and there was an open and honest culture in the home.

12th May 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

At our inspection we gathered evidence to help us answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on observing care, speaking with people who used the service and their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.

Is the service safe?

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. We were shown around the home by a member of staff and found people’s bedrooms and communal areas were cleaned to a high standard. The home was well maintained. We received information which told us the premises and equipment were serviced within recommended timescales.

Care records contained good information about how people’s needs should be met and identified how care and support should be delivered. Daily communication records showed that people received appropriate care to meet their identified needs.

We found the location to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People’s human rights were recognised, respected and promoted.

Is the service effective?

The provider supported staff to deliver care to an appropriate standard. Training records showed that appropriate training was being delivered. Training records showed that appropriate training was being delivered. Staff we spoke with told us everyone worked well together and they felt well supported.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with one person who used the service and they told us they liked living at the home and were well looked after. They told us the staff were nice and they liked to go shopping with them.

Staff told us people received very good care and support. We observed staff assisting people who used the service. People received good care and support. It was clear from our observations that staff knew the people they were supporting very well.

Is the service responsive?

People received care and support they agreed to. We spoke with one person who used the service and they told us they could make decisions about their care and support. People’s preferences were clearly recorded in their care records and staff told us these were always respected.

Care records had specific guidance on how to involve people in making decisions. Each person had a decision making profile which identified ‘what is the best way to present choices to the person’, ‘what ways you can help the person understand’ and ‘when is the best time for the person to make decisions’. People also had a decision making agreement that identified how the person must be involved, who can help with decisions and who makes the final decision.

People had health action plans and, in the main, these showed people received appropriate healthcare. One person’s health action plan had not been updated. We asked to see information about dental care but this was not available. They had received some recent healthcare treatment but there was no reference to this in their health action plan. This could result in people’s healthcare needs being overlooked.

Is the service well led?

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service that people received. We looked at a number of records and audits which confirmed regular checks were carried out and the provider had assessed and monitored the quality of service provision.

The registered manager had been appointed to another position within the organisation so was no longer based at the home but was still involved in the service. The provider had appointed a new manager who commenced on the day of the inspection.

Staff told us the home was well managed. One member of staff said, “It’s a really good staff team and we are well supported.” Another member of staff said, “We get good support but in the last few months it hasn’t been as consistent. We wobbled a bit because we didn’t have a manager but now the new one has started we will be back on track.”

20th July 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Due to their complex needs, people were not able to tell us about their experiences. We therefore used a number of different methods to help us to understand the experiences of people, including observing the delivery of care. We spoke with all of the staff on duty, including the acting manager.

We saw records that demonstrated key people, including relatives and other significant people were consulted about the care needs and wishes of people living at the service. This information was then used to devise a plan of care which empowered and was fulfilling for each person.

We saw how staff supported people, at their own pace, to make sure they knew how best to meet a person's need. We saw examples of good practice, including people being treated with respect and dignity.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage the administration of medicines safely.

Staff spoke enthusiastically about their work. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff were receiving training on a regular basis and this was monitored by the manager.

There were quality monitoring systems in place, which included relatives giving feedback about the care and treatment provided. This gave a good overview of the quality of the service and provided feedback which could be acted upon by the provider. This also meant that the quality of the service was being kept under review.

12th September 2012 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

People we could not communicate with were observed to be comfortable and happy. One relative says in a returned quality assurance survey, ‘ I would like to add that I am very satisfied in general with my relatives care. I visited them some two weeks ago and they looked so well, content and alert.’

People we could not communicate with were observed to be happy and comfortable and safe. One returned satisfaction survey says ‘security is a major concern and the people that are supported are very secure in there home’.

People we could not communicate with were observed to be happy and comfortable and positive relationships were observed being fostered between those using the service and those caring for them.

People we could not communicate with were seen to be comfortable and happy. One relative in a returned satisfaction survey states, ’My relative has been at St Philips Close for nearly two years and they have settled in great. I am highly delighted with the staff and manager, they always make you feel very welcome. I can go anytime, everyone is always happy to see me and we get asked to be involved in lots of things that go off in the home’.

One returned relatives satisfaction survey says ‘ I am highly delighted with the amount of staff available’, They go on to say ‘The manager is very approachable , they will deal with anything thrown at them in a very positive way’.

People using the service were observed to be comfortable and happy. A sample of peoples returned satisfaction surveys show that they are happy with the care and support provided.

 

 

Latest Additions: