• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Sheringham House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

54 Old Road East, Gravesend, Kent, DA12 1NR (01474) 329807

Provided and run by:
Aitch Care Homes (London) Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

28 January 2020

During a routine inspection

About the service

Sheringham House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 10 people aged between 18 and 65 years, who have a learning disability and autism. At the time of our inspection, the service was full. Sheringham House is one of several small homes owned by Aitch Care Homes (London) Limited.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 10 people. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However. the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were safe at Sheringham House. Staff knew their responsibilities in relation to keeping people safe from the risk of abuse. Risks were appropriately assessed and mitigated to ensure people were safe. Medicines were managed well so people received their medicines as prescribed.

The provider continued to operate robust recruitment and selection procedures to make sure staff were suitable and safe to work with people. Staff received training, support and supervision to enable them to carry out their roles safely.

People's support plans clearly detailed their care and support needs. People and their relatives were fully involved with the care planning process. The service had developed support plans which clearly detailed people’s likes, dislikes and preferences. Care had been delivered in line with people’s choices. People received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access healthcare services. These were reviewed regularly. Staff supported people to maintain a balanced diet and monitor their nutritional health.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. We observed people’s rights, their dignity and privacy were respected.

People knew how to complain and felt confident any concerns would be listened and responded to by the provider.

There was a positive leadership in the service. The service was well led by a management team who led by example and had embedded an open and honest culture. Effective governance systems to monitor performance continued to be operation in the service.

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

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 11 April 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.

24 March 2017

During a routine inspection

Sheringham House provides accommodation and support with personal care for men with learning disabilities. The home is registered for 10 people. There were nine people living in the service at the time of our inspection. All the people who lived in the service had varied communication needs. Some people were able to express themselves verbally; others used body language to communicate their needs. Some of the people’s behaviour presented challenges and was responded to with one to one support from staff while some people were more independent.

This inspection took place on 24 March 2017 and was announced. We told the provider 48 hours before our visit that we would be coming to allow time for the staff to prepare people who may experience anxiety about unfamiliar visitors. At the last inspection on 7 and 9 November 2014 the service was rated as Good.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The experiences of people who lived at the service were positive. People and their relatives told us they felt the service was safe, staff were kind and the care they received was good. We found staff had a good understanding of their responsibility with regard to safeguarding adults.

People’s needs were assessed and their preferences identified as much as possible across all aspects of their care. Risks were identified and plans in place to monitor and reduce risks. People had access to relevant health professionals when they needed them. Medicines were stored and administered safely. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff employed by the service. Staff had been recruited safely with appropriate checks on their backgrounds completed.

Staff undertook training and received regular supervision to help support them to provide effective care. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). MCA and DoLS is law protecting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves or whom the state has decided their liberty needs to be deprived in their own best interests. We saw people were able to choose what they ate and drank.

People’s needs were met in a personalised manner. We found that care plans were in place which included information about how to meet a person’s individual and assessed needs. People’s cultural and religious needs were respected when planning and delivering care. Discussions with staff members showed that they respected people’s sexual orientation so that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people could feel accepted and welcomed in the service.

The service had a complaints procedure in place and we found that complaints were investigated and where possible resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant.

Staff told us the service had an open and inclusive atmosphere and the registered manager and deputy manager was approachable and open. The service had various quality assurance and monitoring mechanisms in place. These included surveys, audits and staff and resident meetings.

7 & 9 November 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection was carried out over the course of two days on 07 November 2014 by two inspectors. It was an announced inspection. The service provides care and accommodation to ten adults with learning disabilities. There were ten people living in the service at the time of our inspection. All the people who lived in the service had varied communication needs. Some people were able to express themselves verbally; others used body language to communicate their needs. Some of the people’s behaviour presented challenges and was responded to with one to one support from staff while some people were more independent.

We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming to allow time for the staff to prepare people who may experience anxiety about unfamiliar visitors.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Staff were trained in the safeguarding of adults. They knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to raise an alert with the local authority if they had any concerns. Staff were also trained to de-escalate people’s behaviours which challenge with distraction techniques that preserved people’s dignity and did not use restraint. A member of staff told us, “We anticipate and think of how to defuse a situation while not taking control away from the person”. Risk assessments were centred on the needs of the individual and included risks in the community. Each risk assessment included clear measures to reduce identified risks and guidance for staff to follow.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of the people who lived at the home. We observed that staff had time to spend supporting people in a meaningful way that respected individual needs.

There were safe recruitment procedures in place. These included the checking of references and the carrying out of criminal records checks for prospective employees before they started work. A newly recruited member of staff told us, “I have just started my induction and have to learn as much as possible about each resident and read the policies of the service”. All staff were subject to a probation period and to disciplinary procedures if they did not adhere to their code of conduct.

Medicines were stored and administered safely. Staff were trained in the administration of medicines and kept relevant records that were accurate and fit for purpose.

People lived in a clean and well maintained environment. Staff had a thorough understanding of infection control practice that followed the Department of Health guidelines and helped minimise risk from infection.

Staff had a good knowledge of each person and of how to meet their support needs. One person told us, “I have lived here for over two years and staff know me well.” Specific communication methods were used to converse with people. We observed interaction between people and the staff and saw positive support that promoted people’s independence and protected their rights.

Staff had appropriate training and experience to support people and their complex needs. They had received a thorough induction and had demonstrated their competence before they had been allowed to work on their own. All staff’s annual training was current and staff had the opportunity to receive additional training specific to the needs of the people they supported. Two members of staff told us, “We get full support and can discuss any concerns” and, “We get encouraged to gain qualifications and study”.

People’s quality of life was enhanced by the layout of the premises and the facilities they offered. People’s own rooms were personalised and adapted for individual needs. There was a large enclosed garden, currently laid to lawn that contained a separate summer house structure that had been fitted out with sensory equipment and heated.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). All care staff and management were trained in the principles of the MCA and the DoLS and were knowledgeable about the requirements of the legislation.

We saw that food was prepared and people supported to eat at different times to accommodate their different needs and the challenges that meals times posed for some people. Staff knew about people’s dietary preferences and restrictions such as how one person could not tolerate certain foods and fluids.

The service was caring because staff communicated effectively with people, responded to their needs promptly, and treated them with kindness and respect. People who were able to talk with us told us they were satisfied with the way staff cared for them. One person told us, “The staff are very good and kind”. A relative of a person who lived in the home told us, “The staff are simply brilliant, they are like an extended family and the care is excellent”.

The service provided clear information about how to communicate with people.

Healthy living and wellbeing was promoted by staff. Specialist equipment was provided. Frequent general wellbeing checks were recorded by staff at regular intervals. Health care professionals’ visits and referrals were routinely facilitated. People were supported by staff when they were hospitalised. The manager told us, “We will always stay with them to make sure they are not anxious, advocate when necessary and facilitate two-way communication with the hospital staff”.

People’s individual assessments and care plans were reviewed regularly with their participation or their representatives’ involvement. These were updated to reflect people’s changes of needs, wishes, preferences and goals. The delivery of care that we saw being provided was in line with people’s requirements, as outlined in their care plans.

A wide range of activities was available. The registered manager told us, “We are always on the look-out for new activities that people would enjoy”.

People’s feedback was sought and they were involved in the planning of the delivery of their care. Complaints, comments and suggestions were taken into account and acted on. People participated in monthly residents meetings and yearly satisfaction questionnaires were sent to stakeholders and people’s relatives or representatives to collect their feedback. All feedback was analysed and improvements were made. Transition between services was handled with sensitivity by staff who considered people’s psychological wellbeing.

The service was well led because there was an open and positive culture at the service which focussed on people. Staff told us, “The manager and deputy managers are very approachable, we can talk to them any time and discuss any concerns”. The manager had been in post under one year and had implemented changes in the service. New activities and new documentation that supported staff’s practice had been introduced. The manager told us, “We have to be pro-active and interactive, and the more ideas we can explore the better”.

The staff confirmed the registered manager was supportive and understanding of the challenges they encountered. The manager was included in the staff rota and spent time caring for people. The manager told us, “I like to be ‘on the floor’ and work alongside the care staff; I do not want to be one of these managers who sit in their office and lose touch with the residents and what is happening”. A member of staff told us, “He is a leader but he is also one of us”.

There was a system of quality assurance in place to monitor the overall quality of the service and identify the needs for improvement. Satisfaction surveys were carried out. A regional operations manager inspected the service every month to check compliance with regulations and make recommendations. Recommendations were followed up and actioned within a set time frame. The manager carried out weekly and yearly audits to identify how the service could improve.

17 December 2013

During a routine inspection

There were assessments undertaken on admission and care plans had been developed and drawn up with the individual; these were focused on promoting independence with the person who used the service.

People who used the service, so far as reasonably practicable expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and people's needs were assessed.

We found that staff were caring and that they interacted positively with people who used the service. For example, we saw that staff called people by their first names and responded to requests for support in a positive way.

We found that the registered manager had a range of risk assessments in place including but not limited to, slips, trips and falls, an up to date fire risk assessment, environmental risk assessments and assessments covering the control of substances hazardous to health. (COSHH).

We found that staff received an induction, formal training and underwent a planned programme of shadowing experienced staff and service user familiarisation before they were expected to work on their own. This meant that people who used the service could be confident that they would be supported by staff who understood their needs, that they were familiar with and who had been appropriately trained and inducted to deliver care to them.

The service had recently reviewed its policies about safeguarding and whistleblowing. These policies and procedures gave clear instructions to staff about the protection of vulnerable adults (safeguarding) and staff acted on them.

We found that the registered manager used a range of methods to collect feedback from people who used the service, their representative or relatives and staff.

11 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not all able to tell us their experiences.

We spoke with two people living at the home One person told us they attended a local college and that they were pleased to have chosen the decoration and the furniture in their bedroom. People appeared relaxed and we saw staff interacting with people in a friendly and caring manner.

We found that there were care plans, health files and person centred plans in place for all people that used the service and that these were regularly reviewed and changes made as necessary. We found that people were encouraged to be as independent as possible and to make their own decisions. Where this was not possible we found that best interest meetings and mental capacity assessments had taken place.

Records showed that staff had been properly recruited, trained and supervised and that the service had systems in place to safeguard people. We found that the service monitored quality of care regularly and acted on any issues that had arisen.

19 September 2011

During a routine inspection

The majority of the people living at Sheringham house were unable to communicate verbally, therefore we observed the care for these people. We spoke with two people living at the home, one told us he liked horse riding and trampolining and that staff from Sheringham House accompanied him so that he could take part in these activities. He told us he was going shopping with a member of staff later on and was also pleased to show us photographs' of his recent holiday with another person living at the home to Norfolk.

Another person said that he didn't like to cook but made his own hot drinks and snacks.

People appeared relaxed and we saw staff interacting with people living at the home.