We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Foothills 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 The Foothills, you can give feedback on this service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
People’s experience of using this service:
People told us they felt safe living at the service. There were systems in place to protect people from abuse.
Risk assessments were in place to identify possible risks to people`s health and well-being and measures were implemented to manage the risks.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.
There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. During the day staffing was usually on a one to one basis so people could attend activities of their choice.
People were involved in discussions about their care and had regular meetings with their allocated key worker to review their physical and mental health. People also had chance to discuss their views at regular house meetings.
People were encouraged to engage in activities, pursue hobbies and socialise. People were encouraged to remain in contact with their family and friends.
People were encouraged to be independent. Staff supported people to maintain or improve their life skills such as cooking.
Staff received an induction when they commenced working at the service and further training was provided in all key topics. This ensured staff had the skills to meet people’s needs.
The provider`s governance systems and processes were effective and identified areas of the service where improvements were needed. The registered manager and the provider completed regular audits to ensure the service provided to people was effective and safe.
The service met the characteristics for a rating of "good" in all the key questions we inspected. Therefore, our overall rating for the service after this inspection was "good".
Rating at last inspection: The rating at the last inspection of 09 September 2016 was good.
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through information we receive and future inspections.
The service were first registered in March 2014 but admitted their first person in March 2016, therefore the service had not been inspected previously.
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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Staff we spoke with were aware of how to protect vulnerable people and had safeguarding policies and procedures to guide them which included the contact details of the local authority to report to.
Recruitment procedures were robust and ensured new staff should be safe to work with vulnerable adults.
There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people who used the service.
The administration of medicines was safe. Staff had been trained or had training planned and were supported by the registered manager in the administration of medicines and had up to date policies and procedures to follow. Their competency was checked regularly.
A person who used the service told us food was good and they helped plan the menu and shop for food. People’s weights were recorded and professional help was sought for any person who was nutritionally at risk.
Electrical and gas appliances were serviced regularly. Each person was shown the fire and evacuation procedures and there was a business plan for any unforeseen emergencies. There were regular fire alarm tests to help protect the health and welfare of people.
There were systems in place to prevent the spread of infection. Staff were trained or had training planned in infection control and provided hand washing facilities to help protect their health and welfare.
Most staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager was aware of her responsibilities of how to apply for any best interest decisions under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and followed the correct procedures using independent professionals.
New staff received induction training to provide them with the skills to care for people. Staff files showed staff had undertaken or were being provided with sufficient training to meet the needs of people and they were supervised regularly to check their competence. Supervision sessions also gave staff the opportunity to discuss their work and ask for any training they felt necessary.
We observed there were good interactions between staff and people who used the service. The person accommodated at the home thought staff were kind and helpful.
We saw that the quality of care plans gave staff sufficient information to look after people accommodated at the care home and they were regularly reviewed. Plans of care contained people’s personal preferences so they could be treated as individuals.
There was a complaints procedure for people to voice their concerns. There had not been any complaints since the service commenced operations.
People agreed to activities to help promote independence, for example, improving life skills such as cooking, shopping, cleaning and managing their own finances. There were also activities for people to enjoy such as going out, contact with friends and families, going on holiday and gardening.
Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and supportive.
Staff meetings gave staff the opportunity to be involved in the running of the home.
The manager conducted sufficient audits to ensure the quality of the service provided was maintained or improved.
The environment was maintained at a good level and homely in character.
People who used the service had regular planning sessions with staff for their activities, food and care. This meant they had chance to discuss their own wishes and choices.