We carried out a review of the data available to us about Valley House in the Vineyard Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Valley House in the Vineyard Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
Valley House in the Vineyard Limited is a residential home providing personal care for up to eight people living with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection eight people were living there, most of whom had been there for several years.
Valley House is in a rural area and is set within the grounds of a vineyard. The home has two floors with bedrooms on each floor and communal areas on the ground floor. It has a garden and an outside area that is shared with the vineyard that people can use.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people that use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice and independence. People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using the service and what we found
People, their relatives and professionals told us people were safe and our observations confirmed this. Staff knew people well and understood individual care and support needs. Staff understood the importance of safeguarding and were able to tell us what they would do if they had concerns about a person’s wellbeing. Risk assessments were in place and specific to people’s needs. Staff were recruited safely and people living at the service took part in the interview process. There were always enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. The induction process was robust. Few medicines were used at the home but those that were, were ordered, stored, provided and disposed of safely.
People were supported to have control and to have choice in all aspects of their lives. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way and in their best interests. Staff received regular, relevant training and were able to select some courses that they felt would help them meet the needs of people. This included mental capacity and safeguarding training. People’s nutritional needs were met, and people were supported to receive support from health and social care professionals when required.
Staff were caring and understanding towards people. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected and promoted. People’s differences under the Equalities Act 2000 were explored, documented and respected.
Support for people was person-centred and focussed on individual’s needs. Care plans were reviewed with people, their relatives and professionals. People had routines inside and outside of the home. A comprehensive range of activities was available to people and strong links had been established with the local community. Although no complaints had been received, there was a complaints policy and people and their relatives knew how to raise concerns.
The registered manager and deputy manager were both well thought of by people, relatives and professionals. The deputy manager was present at the inspection and we saw people speaking with him and responding to him in a positive way. Staff were positive about the managers and the home. One staff member said, “I want to stay here until I retire. I’ve worked in care all my life. This is like home from home.” Audit processes were in place and feedback was sought from people, staff, relatives and professionals.
The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and the potential drivers for improvement.
As part of this thematic review, we carried out a survey with the deputy manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people. The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way. The home did not use any restraint measures.
For more details, see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at the last inspection
The last rating for this service was good. (Published 26 January 2017)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Family Investment (Five) Limited provides accommodation with personal care for up to 8 adults with a learning disability. The shareholders and directors of Family Investment (Five) Limited are family members or guardians of the people who live there. The directors hold regular meetings to discuss all aspects of the service and any surplus monies go back into improvements. There were 8 people living at the service at the time of the inspection. Each person has their own en-suite room and shares the lounge, sun room and dining room. The service is situated by the vineyards at Elham Valley. It has its own garden to the rear of the property.
A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 identify and report any safeguarding concerns in order to help people keep safe.
A robust recruitment procedure meant checks were carried out on all staff before they supported people, to ensure that they were suitable for their role.
There were enough staff who were sufficiently qualified and competent to support the people at the service. Most staff had worked at the service for a number of years and so helped ensure consistency of care.
There were safe systems in place for the storage, administration and disposal of medicines. Staff received regular training in how to administer medicines safely.
Potential risks of harm in the environment and for people when carrying out their daily lives had been identified and guidance was in place as to how the risk of harm could be reduced.
A schedule of cleaning was in place to ensure the service was clean and practices were in place to minimise the spread of any infection.
Staff felt well supported. They received informal support from the staff team and formal supervision with a senior member of staff. There was a rolling programme of essential training to ensure staff had the skills and knowledge to care for people effectively.
People had their health needs assessed and these were effectively monitored. People were responsible for planning, shopping and cooking their own food and took this in turns.
CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The service understood when to make an application, but had not needed to do so.
Staff were kind, caring and compassionate, and genuinely enjoyed spending time with people. The service was run on ‘family values’ and people were supported to maintain links with people who were important to them such as family and friends. People were actively involved in making decisions that affected their daily lives.
People understood that information about their care, treatment and support needs were contained in their plans of care. This information included what was important to people and their choices and preferences. Staff knew people well which enabled them to support people in a personalised way.
The service prioritised ensuring people had active fulfilling lives. People undertook a variety of educational, creative and work based activities which reflected their interests and abilities.
People’s views were sought in a variety of ways and they felt able to raise any concerns with staff. Information was available about how to follow the complaints process, should they need to use it.
The registered manager was approachable and the atmosphere in the service was relaxed and informal. The registered manager was supported by a staff team who understood the aims of the service and were motivated to support people according to their choices and preferences.
Systems were in place to review the quality of the service and any shortfalls identified were addressed. Feedback was sought from people who lived in the home and the results were that people were highly satisfied with the care provided at the service.
We observed that there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.
The provider had a clear complaints procedure in place. People who used the service knew how to make a complaint and were supported by staff, if required.