• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Two School Cottages

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

4 The Street, Taverham, Norwich, Norfolk, NR8 6TD (01603) 262479

Provided and run by:
Mr & Mrs M Scott

All Inspections

8 March 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

Two School Cottages is a residential care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care for people with a learning disability. It is registered to provide support for a maximum of two people. At the time of our inspection, two people were using the service. The service is run by a provider who are a married couple, one of whom is the registered manager, in their own home. They are the only paid employed staff, however, people also receive support from volunteer staff who receive the same training and support as paid staff.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values 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 ' Registering the Right Support' CQC policy.

People’s experience of using this service:

People continued to receive care that was safe, effective, caring, responsive to their needs and well-led. People told us they felt safe and were very happy living at Two School Cottages. People were supported to take their medicines in a safe way.

Staff had received appropriate training and support to enable them to carry out their role safely. Peoples health was well managed and staff had positive links with professionals, which promoted well-being for them.

Staff were very kind and caring and promoted people’s dignity. Staff understood the importance of treating people with respect and ensured they did this. People were observed to have good relationships with the staff team and their extended family within the domestic setting the service was in. Staff actively ensured people maintained links with their friends and family.

People's records clearly identified their preferences. Staff provided effective care for people, which met their needs through person-centred care planning. People enjoyed an extensive programme of activities both in the service and the local community. Complaints were managed within the providers stated process.

Rating at last inspection: Good (Published June 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection based on our previous rating.

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

28 April 2016

During a routine inspection

This was an announced inspection that took place on 28 April 2016

2 School Cottages provides accommodation and residential care for up to two people with learning disabilities. There were two people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager at the home. 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.

People living at the home felt safe and were happy living there. The registered manager and staff demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of the people they supported. Staff spoke to and treated people in a respectful and caring manner, and interactions between people, staff and volunteers were relaxed and friendly. They knew the people they cared for well. People had the freedom to make their own choices, and staff promoted and encouraged people to be independent. People had a busy and varied lifestyle, and enjoyed activities that were home and community based.

Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of harm and to keep them safe. The premises were well maintained and staff were well trained. There were systems in place to monitor the safety of the environment and equipment used within the home minimising risks to people.

There were safe recruitment practices in place and appropriate checks were conducted before people started work ensuring that staff were suitable for their role. There were processes in place to ensure new staff and volunteers were inducted into the home appropriately. Staff and volunteers received regular training, supervision and annual appraisals.

Staff and volunteers were aware of the importance of gaining consent for the support they offered people. The registered manager and staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards legislation.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to a range of health and social care professionals when required, and their nutritional needs and preferences were met. People received their medicines when they needed them, and there were enough staff to help them when they needed assistance.

People received care and treatment in accordance with their identified needs and wishes, care plans documented information about people’s personal history, choices and preferences, preferred activities and how people communicated.

There were systems and processes in place to monitor and evaluate the quality of the service provided. There was a complaints policy and procedure in place, and information about how to make a complaint was displayed.

The atmosphere in the home was open, friendly and welcoming. People and staff found the registered manager to be friendly, open and welcoming and felt able to raise concerns. Staff and volunteers were happy in their job and felt valued by the registered manager.

30 April 2014

During a routine inspection

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

We saw evidence that there were enough suitably trained and experienced staff to meet the needs of the people who used the service. The owners of the service ran and managed the home on a 24-hour basis. They had however, two voluntary staff that assisted as required. Both of these people had the necessary recruitment checks and relevant training and education.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Medicines within the service were effectively managed. This meant that they were correctly handled, administered, stored and disposed of to minimise the potential for error and ensure people received the correct medicine.

There were effective and embedded arrangements in place for reporting incidents and accidents with evidence that learning from incidents and accidents took place. The provider explained that they took the necessary actions to help reduce the risk of a potential reoccurrence.

There were effective procedures in place to manage and mitigate foreseeable emergencies including fire and loss of utilities. This meant that potential risks to the service were anticipated and planned for in advance.

We reviewed the audit schedule for the service and noted that there were appropriately completed risk assessments for both service provision and the environment. The provider had an effective system in place to ensure the reliability of systems, processes and operating procedures. These included infection prevention and control, health and safety and the layout, cleanliness and maintenance of facilities and building.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the care and support they received and felt their needs had been met.

People's care records showed that their needs had been comprehensively assessed and that care and treatment was planned and delivered to ensure their safety and welfare. The records were regularly reviewed and updated. This meant that staff were provided with up to date information about how people's needs were to be met.

Care plans were person-centred and aimed to promote the person's independence and inclusion into the community.

People's capacity to consent was assessed in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. There was evidence that people made as many decisions as they could for themselves.

People's consent was obtained before any care or support was given and people had signed their care plans and risk assessments to state that they agreed with them. One person said, 'Yes, I get to choose what I do. I can make my own mind up'. We saw evidence that people had been asked to give consent for the recording and sharing of their information with other health and social care professionals.

Is the service caring?

One person who used the service said, 'I am very happy living here. It's really nice. I love the garden and have helped with the plants'. Another person said, 'I like it here and my room'.

People were cared for and supported by kind and attentive staff. The staff had compassionate attitudes and it was evident that they had built positive relationships with the people who used the service.

The staff knew the individual needs of people and this was observed during their interaction with them. Staff allowed people the time they needed to understand the information that was being given to them. This ensured that people had enough time to make their own decisions.

People's preferences, interests and beliefs were documented in their care plans. We saw evidence that these were accommodated by the staff. There was significant importance placed on meeting people's emotional and social needs, and this was done in a respectful manner.

The staff had effective communication skills and communicated in a way that people could understand. Their communication was appropriate and respectful.

The service questionnaires returned by people who used the service and their family and friends all stated that the staff were caring and supportive. One comment said, 'I can only say that everything you do is perfect'.

Is the service responsive?

There was strong evidence of the provider effectively working with other health and social care professionals to respond to the varying needs of people. People's care records included relevant information from other agencies to ensure that all agencies responded together in order to meet the person's physical, mental health and social needs.

People who used the service made their own choices as to what activities and leisure interests they wanted to pursue. The staff were responsive to these preferences and assisted the people to undertake their interests whilst maintaining their safety.

People were encouraged to maintain their relationships with their family and friends. One person's friend had spent Christmas day at Two School Cottages. This demonstrated that the provider had responded to a person's wish to spend the day with their best friend.

The care planning demonstrated a high level of understanding in relation to the vulnerability of the people who used the service. Care and support plans responded to this by ensuring people's safety and welfare were paramount at all times, as well as encouraging and promoting people's independence as safely as possible.

The service had an effective complaints procedure in place. We reviewed the minimal complaints the provider had received, and saw that where people had raised concerns, appropriate actions had been taken to address concerns and where possible, to the satisfaction of the complainant.

Is the service well-led?

During our inspection we saw evidence that the provider prioritised safe, high quality and compassionate care. Equality and diversity were promoted. We noted that there were effective communication strategies between the owners of the home and their relief staff. The satisfaction questionnaires returned by the relief staff showed high satisfaction with the owners and positive comments about their managerial and leadership skills.

The service had quality assurance systems, audits and records seen by us. These showed that showed identified shortfalls were addressed promptly.

1 July 2013

During a routine inspection

During this inspection visit one person told us that although they were sometimes sad they had the support and encouragement from the owners of the home. They said, "They know when I am sad and will talk to me about it. I have the choice of what I want to do, food I want to eat and I am taken on lots of holidays. I like it here."

We saw records written in care plans of the individual care needs required. We saw risks identified and recorded correctly and that medical information was up to date for the people living in this home. This enabled us, during this inspection visit, to see that the support required for their specific needs was met appropriately and safely.

We looked at how choices of meals were made. We were told how the individual people shopped for food of their choice and saw that the list of meals provided appeared balanced and nutritious.

We observed the house was clean and noted the methods used to prevent and control possible infections.

Within the designated office we saw secure systems in place for confidential records, that those records were up to date and that they were relevant and informative.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.

3 April 2012

During a routine inspection

The people who live in this small home were very complimentary about the care and support they received. We were given information on how they were supported, from the visits to the hospital and the need and action taken to supply a new bed, to how the support was given to help build skills for independence.

We were told 'I do not want to live anywhere else' and 'I like my room.'

People are included and involved in all aspects of their day to day activities.