• Care Home
  • Care home

Apple Grove

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Somerset Court, Harp Road, Brent Knoll, Highbridge, Somerset, TA9 4HQ (01278) 761904

Provided and run by:
National Autistic Society (The)

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 4 August 2021

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act.

As part of this inspection we looked at the infection control and prevention measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

Cotswold House 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.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. The registered manager was not present at the service, the provider had arranged for another manager to oversee their absence.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

Before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We received feedback from the local authority. The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. We used this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We completed observations of the service. We spoke with the lead manager, covering manager, deputy manager, and one member of staff. We reviewed two people’s care records. We also reviewed records relating to infection control.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 4 August 2021

About the service: Cotswold House is a large detached bungalow situated in the extensive grounds of Somerset Court.

The home accommodates up to six people who have autism and complex support needs. The home comprises of the main building and three self-contained flats attached to the bungalow.

During our inspection there were three people living in the main part of the home and three people living in each one of the flats. People living at Cotswold House can access all other facilities on the Somerset Court site, which include a day service facility and gym.

The care service had not originally been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This guidance was implemented in 2017 after the service had registered with us. This was because there were five other registered care homes set in the grounds of Somerset Court in close proximity to Cotswold House. In total 37 people with learning disabilities were living at Somerset Court. It would be unlikely that we would register this model of services now when considering applications for services for people with a learning disability and/or autism.

People’s experience of using this service:

The values set out in the Registering the Right Support include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. This location may not be ideal for some people who would want to access the local community independently due to the rural area. However, people were given choices and their independence and participation within the local community was encouraged.

Staff knew what action to take if they suspected abuse. Relevant risk assessments had been completed to ensure people’s safety. Medicines were managed safely. Accidents and incidents were monitored to identify and address any patterns or themes.

People were supported to make choices and had control of their lives. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way as possible. This was kept under review. Staff were aware of the legislation to protect people’s rights in making decisions.

People were cared for in a way that respected their privacy, dignity and promoted their independence. Staff knew people well enabling care to be delivered effectively, responding to people’s changing needs.

Staff interactions with people were kind and caring. People were supported by staff that were familiar to them taking into their consideration their preferences. People had a core group of staff within the team that supported them on a day to day basis. This enabled people to build effective relationships and enable the staff to get to know them.

People received personalised care, their support needs and preferences were detailed in their care plans. People were supported to lead meaningful and fulfilled lives through activities of their choice. The provider had a complaints policy and process in place. Relatives said they would have no hesitation in speaking with the registered manager or staff. Staff knew people well and recognised when they were not happy with the care and support and made the necessary adjustments.

Systems were in place to monitor the service, which ensured that people's risks were mitigated and lessons were learnt when things went wrong. There was an open culture within the service, where people and staff could approach the registered manager, who acted on concerns and suggestions to make improvements to people’s care.

People were provided with a safe, effective, caring and responsive service that was well led. The organisation’s values and philosophy were clearly explained to staff and there was a positive culture where people felt included and their views were sought. The registered provider was aware of the importance of reviewing the quality of the service and was aware of the improvements that were needed to enhance the service.

Rating at last inspection: Rating at last inspection: Good (report published September 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. We found the service continues to meet the characteristics of Good in all areas.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk