The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Whiteleaf Cottage

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Lower Road, Teynham, Kent, ME9 9LR (01795) 477966

Provided and run by:
Cartref Homes UK Limited

All Inspections

24 April 2018

During a routine inspection

We inspected the service on 24 April 2018. The inspection was announced. Whiteleaf Cottage is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Whiteleaf Cottage is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for five younger adults who have a learning disability and/or who live with autism. There were five people living in the service at the time of our inspection visit. All of them had complex needs for care and as a result of this they were subject to various legal orders that required them to live in the service.

The service was run by a company who was the registered provider. There was a registered manager in post. 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. In this report when we speak about both the company and the registered manager we refer to them as being, ‘the registered persons’.

At the last inspection on 9 October 2015 the service was rated, ‘Good’.

At this inspection we rated the service as, ‘Good’.

The service had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the ‘Registering the Right Support’ and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. This helped to ensure that people with learning disabilities and autism living in the service could live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People were safeguarded from situations in which they may experience abuse including financial mistreatment. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed, monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe while their freedom was respected. Medicines were managed safely. There were enough staff on duty and background checks had been completed before new care staff had been appointed. Suitable arrangements were in place to prevent and control infection and lessons had been learned when things had gone wrong.

Care was delivered in a way that promoted positive outcomes for people and care staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to provide support in line with legislation and guidance. This included respecting people’s citizenship rights under the Equality Act 2010. People received the individual assistance they needed to prepare their own meals and they were helped to have a balanced diet to promote their good health. Suitable steps had been taken to ensure that people received coordinated and person-centred care when they used or moved between different services. People had been supported to live healthier lives by having suitable access to healthcare services so that they received on-going healthcare support. The accommodation was designed, adapted and decorated to meet people’s needs and expectations.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. The registered persons had also taken the necessary steps to ensure that people only received lawful care that was the least restrictive possible. Policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion and they had been given emotional support when needed. They had also been supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care as far as possible. This included them having access to lay advocates if necessary. Confidential information was kept private.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs and which promoted their independence. This included them having access to information that was presented to them in an accessible way. People had been offered opportunities to pursue their hobbies and interests. The registered manager recognised the importance of promoting equality and diversity. This included appropriately supporting people if they chose gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender life-course identities. There were arrangements to ensure that people’s complaints were listened and responded to in order to improve the quality of care. In addition, suitable provision had been made to support people at the end of their life to have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.

The registered manager had promoted a person-centred culture in the service and had made the arrangements necessary to ensure that regulatory requirements were met. People who lived in the service and members of staff were actively engaged in developing the service. There were systems and procedures to enable the service to learn, improve and assure its sustainability. The registered persons were also actively working in partnership with other agencies to support the development of joined-up care.

9 September 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected this home on 9 September 2015. This was an unannounced inspection.

Whiteleaf Cottage is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for five persons who have a learning difficulty and or Autism. The people needed support to understand their particular conditions; identify triggers for unwanted behaviours and learn life skills to increase their independence. At the time of our inspection, there were four people who lived in the home. The people were fairly independent, but required specific individual support.

There was a registered manager at the home. 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 against the risk of abuse; they felt safe and staff recognised the signs of abuse or neglect and what to look out for. They understood their role and responsibilities to report any concerns and were confident in doing so.

The home had risk assessments in place to identify and reduce risks that may be involved when meeting people’s needs. There were risk assessments related to people’s physical and social needs and details of how the risks could be reduced. This enabled the staff to take immediate action to minimise or prevent harm to people.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet people’s needs and promote people’s safety. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and the lines of accountability within the home. Staff attended regular supervision, had an annual appraisal and regular team meetings.

The registered manager followed safe recruitment practices to help ensure staff were suitable for their job role at the home. Staff told us the management was approachable, very open, and supportive. Staff morale was good and staff talked positively about their roles within the home.

We observed that staff had developed very positive relationships with the people who used the service. Staff were kind and respectful, and were aware of how to respect people’s privacy and dignity. People told us that they made their own choices and decisions, which were respected by staff. They found staff provided really helpful advice.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. People who had been assessed as lacking capacity to make decisions for themselves and made sure their best interests were taken into account. Staff were still supporting people to make choices and also made sure their best interests were taken into account. Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2015 and DoLS to enable them to understand the need for referrals and their responsibilities around best interest decisions.

The systems for the management of medicines were followed by staff and people received their medicines safely. People had good access to health and social care professionals when required.

People were very much involved in the care planning processes. Their support needs, likes and lifestyle preferences had been carefully considered and were reflected within the care and support plans.

People were encouraged and supported to pursue activities inside and outside of the home. Staff made people aware of what is happening in the local community, such as festivals that they wish to attend. People were also encouraged to keep active and continue learning. For example, one person likes to help out the local church.

Health action plans were in place and people had their physical and mental health needs regularly monitored. Regular reviews were held and people were supported to attend appointments with various health and social care professionals. This ensured they received treatment and support as required. Those people who were able make their own appointments with their GP attend unsupported were encouraged to do so.

Staff meetings and residents meetings took place on a regular basis. Minutes were recorded and any actions required were documented and acted on. People’s feedback was sought and used to improve the care. People knew how to make a complaint and complaints were managed in accordance with the provider’s complaints policy.

The registered manager and provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care to ensure standards were met and maintained. The registered manager understood the requirements of their registration with the commission.

8 July 2013

During a routine inspection

During our visit to the home we met and talked with two of the people living there, looked around the home and viewed records. We talked with two staff as well as the manager.

People spoke positively about their experiences of living in the home. They told us they liked living there, and were able to make their own decisions about their day. They said that the staff supported them with what they wanted to do. One person said "The staff are friendly, we do a lot and we have a laugh. I really like it here".

People were treated with respect, and the care and support they needed had been agreed with them.

The service protects people from abuse through staff training, policies and procedures including the whistle blowing policy.

People receive their medication as prescribed.

The service has a number of systems in place to monitor the quality of the service it provides.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.

10 December 2012

During a routine inspection

There were five people living in the home at the time of our visit. There was 24 hour support provided. We met two people who were living in the home, and talked in private with one person. They told us about their activities and what life was like in the home. They responded positively to questions about their involvement with their care planning and day to day lifestyles. People told us they were happy living in the home. They told us about their employment opportunities and how they were supported to be as independent as possible. They said, 'Staff are alright, they support you quite a lot.' 'We choose activities each week, we went to Thorpe park.' 'I feel safe here, I like it.'

The service made sure people were able to make their own decisions about their care and treatment. We found that the care and support that people received was well planned and sensitively delivered. The home was clean throughout. There were enough staff on duty to make sure people were safe and their needs were met. People were listened to and knew how to make a complaint.

6 September 2011

During a routine inspection

We met the five people who were living in the home, and talked briefly with three of them. They did not show a strong desire to talk about their lifestyles, although one talked about his employment, and expressed pride in his achievements.

They responded positively to questions about their involvement with their care planning and day to day lifestyles.