Archived: Peppercorns

The Peppercorns provides accommodation for up to six people with learning and physical disabilities. On the day of our inspection there were three people living on site and two people staying for short term respite care.

There was a manager in place who had applied for registration with the Care Quality Commission. 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 Act2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

The atmosphere in the home was warm and welcoming; from the manager as well as the staff and people who used the service. The service had safe recruitment processes in place and appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. This showed staff had been appropriately checked to make sure they were suitable and safe to work with vulnerable people.

We saw there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs safely. The manager told us a dependency tool was used to calculate the number of staff required for each shift; however this was flexible and would be changed depending on how many people were resident. This demonstrated the service considered the numbers of staff needed to ensure people's needs were met.

Appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to the safe recording, handling, storage and administration of medicines.

People were supported by suitably qualified and experienced staff. Staff received regular training which equipped them to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Supervision from the manager was in place for all staff, to monitor their performance and development needs and ensure their skills and competencies were kept up to date.

We saw each person was asked about any food preferences, and this was documented in each person's care plan. People were supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs.

We saw people were supported to express their views and were actively involved in making decisions about their day to day care, treatment and support. People’s relatives had been involved in developing care plans. People’s privacy, dignity, and independence were respected. People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

There was clear documentation in each person's care plan about their likes and dislikes. Care plans were up to date and gave a detailed picture of how each person liked to be supported.

People were offered choices throughout the day including what activities they would like to do and when.

We saw the complaints procedure was followed and complaints were acted on in a timely manner.

The manager was open to new ideas and keen to learn from others to ensure the best possible outcomes for people living within the home.

The manager regularly worked with staff providing support to people who lived at the home, which meant they had an in-depth knowledge of the people living there.

Auditing was in place; however, outcomes were not followed up. This meant the registered provider had systems in place to ensure they identified shortfalls however there was no record these were addressed; for example accidents and incidents were recorded but there was no analysis documented to identify any trends or make changes to prevent reoccurrence.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with the company director, staff members and from looking at records. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by staff.

Systems were in place to ensure managers and staff learned from events such as accidents, incidents and concerns. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve. We saw staff members had received training in all relevant areas to meet the needs of people who used the service.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic and equipment was well maintained. During our visit, we noticed there were no paper towels in communal bathrooms or in people's rooms.

Staff personnel files contained all relevant information, including Disclosure & Barring Service (DBS) checks and reference checks from previous employers.

Is the service effective?

Where possible, people's care records were assessed with their involvement and with relatives and other professionals' involvement.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. We observed staff speaking to people in a kind and caring manner.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities at the service. On the day of our visit we observed people watching television and baking with staff members. We spoke with staff and one person who used the service. This person told us they liked to do baking with staff members.

People, or relatives of people, knew how to complain if they were unhappy. The complaints policy was available on a notice board in the main entrance area. We also saw cards from people and their relatives, thanking the service for their support. One member of staff we spoke with told us; 'It's good here. We're only a small team but we all get on great and we all clean and tidy and keep [the service] in a good condition'.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received the most suitable care. This included multi-agency work with doctors and other health professionals.

The service had quality assurance systems in place and actions were identified. We saw audits of medication and health & safety.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service. Staff were also aware of audits and observations carried out by the manager to monitor and improve service provision. This helped to ensure people received a good quality service.

People who had received respite care at Peppercorns told us they had been satisfied with their care. We spoke with one person on the phone. They told us 'They understood everything about what I needed and they took me out. They were marvellous'.

We saw that the provider had completed assessments of people's needs and had written plans of care with specialist involvement where necessary. Risks assessments balanced freedom and choice against safety.

People were involved in their day to day care. They were consulted in reviews and in conversations about choices and decisions. They were treated with respect.

People were protected from harm and the risk of harm by staff recruitment procedures, risk assessments and staff training.

Staff had received training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to offer appropriate care. They received support and guidance in their role.

The service had a system in place to monitor its performance and ensure audits and other safety checks took place. This meant it could maintain and improve the quality of care people received.