• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Church House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The Old Rectory, Rectory Lane, Harrietsham, Kent, ME17 1HS (01622) 858970

Provided and run by:
Endurance Care Ltd

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

21 March 2017

During a routine inspection

Church House is situated in Harrietsham, Kent, it is a detached property set in its own grounds. The service is one of many services registered with the Commission under the company name of Embrace Lifestyles (FL) Limited. The service provides personal care, accommodation and support for up to eight people with a learning or physical disability. The purpose of the service is to support people with learning disabilities to be as independent as possible. At the time of the inspection there were five people living at Church House.

Church House also offers respite/short breaks for young people with a learning disability, physical disabilities and Autism. There were no people staying for planned respite at the time of the inspection.

The service became registered on 08 November 2016 to provide personal care in the community to support people with learning disabilities to live in their own accommodation. The service was not yet providing support to people in the community so this report only covers the regulated activity of accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care.

At the last inspection on 06 January 2015, the service was rated Good.

This inspection took place on 21 March 2017 and was announced.

There was a registered manager employed at 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 feedback we received from people and their representatives was excellent. Those people that used the service and their representatives expressed great satisfaction and spoke very highly of the registered manager and the staff. Everyone within the organisation was highly motivated and committed to ensuring people that used the service had good quality care.

Medicines were mostly managed safely. One medicine was in stock but there was no record of it. Expiry dates of medicines had not always been checked. This put people at risk of receiving medicines that were out of date. Policies and procedures were in place for the safe administration of medicines and staff had been trained and assessed to administer medicines safely. Staff were observed by the provider and registered manager before being 'signed off' as competent. We made a recommendation about this.

Recruitment practices were safe and checks were carried out to make sure staff were suitable to work with people who needed care and support because employment checks and references had been gained before staff started their roles. The registered manager had not always identified where staff had gaps in their employment.

The safety of people was taken seriously by the registered manager and staff who understood their responsibility to protect people's health and well-being. Staff, including the registered manager, had received training about protecting people from abuse, and they knew what action to take if they suspected abuse. Risks to people's and staff member's safety both internally and externally had been assessed and recorded, with measures put into place to manage any hazards identified.

Staffing levels were kept under review to ensure staff were available to meet people's assessed needs.

Staff had a full understanding of people's care and support needs and had the skills and knowledge to meet them. People received consistent support from the same staff who knew them well. Staff were trained to meet people's needs. Robust induction procedures were in place to ensure staff were able and confident to meet people's needs. The provider encouraged staff to undertake additional qualifications to develop their skills.

People's needs had been assessed to identify the care and support they required. Care and support was planned with people and their representative's and regularly reviewed to make sure people continued to have the support they needed. Detailed guidance was provided to staff about how to provide all areas of the care and support people needed.

People received personalised support from staff. This encouraged and supported people to be active members of their community and involved in having a voice. Staff took people’s views seriously and supported them to write letters to challenge issues that they had an interest in. People were supported to achieve goals to enable them to gain skills and greater independence. Each person had a specific goal plan in place which detailed what the desired outcome was such as managing their own money, self-managing medicines, acknowledging personal space boundaries and travelling independently. People’s achievements were celebrated.

The registered manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People had capacity to make their own decisions. Staff respected people’s decisions.

People were supported to be as independent as possible to manage their own nutrition and hydration. People shopped for their own food and had support to prepare and cook food if this was needed. Staff had received specialist training to enable them to support a person with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). This enabled the person to receive suitable nutrition and hydration. Staff ensured people remained as healthy as possible.

People had positive relationships with the staff. People were treated with dignity and respect by staff who also maintained people's privacy. Staff were kind and caring and enabled people to participate in various activities they enjoyed within the home and in the local community, enhancing people's well-being and sense of purpose.

The provider and registered manager were committed to providing a high quality service to people and its continuous development. Feedback from people, their representatives and others was continually sought and used as an opportunity for improve the service people received.

6 January 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection on 6 January 2015, it was unannounced.

Church House in Harrietsham, Kent, is a detached property set in its own grounds. The service is one of many services registered with the Commission under the company name of European Lifestyles (FL) Limited. The service provides personal care, accommodation and support for up to eight people with a learning or physical disability.

Due to people’s varied needs, some of the six people living in the service had a limited ability to verbally communicate with us or engage directly in the inspection process. People demonstrated that they were happy in their home by showing open affection to the registered manager and staff who were supporting them. One person said, “The staff are nice”. Staff were available throughout the day, and responded quickly to people’s requests for help. Staff interacted well with people, and supported them when they needed it. The management and staff team included team leaders and support workers.

The service 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.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The manager and staff showed that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager told us that currently none of the people had their liberty restricted but they would know how to respond if this was needed.

People were appropriately assessed regarding their mental capacity to make certain decisions. Processes were in place to arrange ‘best interest’ meetings involving people’s next of kin, and health and social care professionals for making specific decisions about their care and welfare.

There were enough staff to make sure that people’s needs were met. Staff had been trained in how to protect people, and discussions with them confirmed that they knew the action to take in the event of any suspicion of abuse. Staff understood the whistle blowing policy. One member of staff told us “It was handled properly” They were confident they could raise any concerns with the manager or outside agencies if this was needed.

People indicated that they were involved in their care planning by showing us their activity planners. Staff supported them in making arrangements to meet their health needs. Care plans were regularly reviewed to show any changes in people’s needs. Staff spoke with people in a caring way and supported people to do what they wanted. People were supported in having a well-balanced diet and menus offered variety and choice. One person said “I like the food”.

Staff knew about people’s individual lifestyles, and supported them in retaining their independence. People were given individual support to carry out their hobbies and interests, such as swimming, trampolining, going to the cinema and going to various social clubs. People said that the staff were kind and caring and treated them with dignity and respect.

Medicines were managed, stored, disposed off and administered safely. People received their medicines on time.

There were clear risk assessments in place for the environment, and for each person who received care. Assessments identified people’s specific needs, and showed how risks could be minimised. There were systems in place to review accidents and incidents and make any relevant improvements as a result.

The registered manager told us staffing levels were regularly assessed depending on people’s needs and occupancy levels, and adjusted accordingly. Staff files contained the required recruitment information. New staff were taken through a staff induction programme which included basic training subjects. They worked alongside other staff until they had been assessed as being able to work on their own. There were systems in place for on-going staff training and for staff one to one meetings and support.

There were systems in place to obtain people’s views. These included formal and informal meetings, events, questionnaires and daily contact with the registered manager and staff. People said that the manager was “Friendly and approachable.”

Every aspect of the service was monitored. The premises and equipment were well maintained. The manager carried out checks and analysis to identify where improvements were needed and kept clear records of this. Meetings held regularly gave people the opportunity to comment on the quality of the service. People were listened to and their views were taken into account in the way the service was runsh

4 July 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection we observed gentle and supportive interactions between staff and the people using the service. We read care plans which showed that people's individual needs and preferences had been considered and recorded.

A range of assessments had been completed to determine the risk to people in certain situations. We saw that risks had been balanced with people's enjoyment so that they were not prevented from taking part in a wide range of leisure activities. People went swimming and to the pub, played archery and boccia and took part in baking.

People were encouraged to become as independent as possible and staff gave the necessary support to enable this to happen.

Staff told us that they enjoyed working with the people living in the home.

We found that suitable steps had been taken to protect people from the risks of abuse and that the home was kept clean and hygienic to prevent the possible spread of infection.

The service operated a proper recruitment process to ensure that the right, experienced staff of good character were employed to work there.

Audits had been undertaken on a regular basis to identify any areas where improvements to the service were needed. We found examples of how the service had been made better as a result of these audits.

20 June 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People told us that they felt safe and well cared for at Church House. They felt involved in decisions about their care and were able to take part in discussions about the level of support they required. People told us that they could eat what they liked and when they liked but were supported by staff with healthy living choices. People liked the staff at Church House and felt that they could go out when they wished as there were enough staff to support their needs and preferences.

10 August 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

People told us that they could make choices about thier daily lives and were involved in writing their own care plans. They chose what to eat, when to get up and go to bed, and were involved in decisions about the running of the home. Suggestions they made were acted upon. They could choose to be in charge of their own medicines. People told us they attended activities in the community they liked and had chosen themselves.

People told us they liked the staff, that staff supported them with personal needs and independence skills and were respectful. They said staff respected their privacy and knocked on their doors before entering.People said they would go to staff if they were worried about anything and that they had been reminded of how to make a complaint.