You are here

Foxglove Care Limited - 82 Willowdale Good

Reports


Review carried out on 7 October 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Foxglove Care Limited - 82 Willowdale on 7 October 2021. 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 Foxglove Care Limited - 82 Willowdale, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 11 November 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service.

Foxglove Care Limited - 82 Willowdale is a residential care home. It provided personal care to 2 people at the time of the inspection. The service can support people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People's experience of using the service and what we found.

People were safely supported and protected from harm. Safeguarding systems were followed and risk was well managed to keep people safe. Sufficient numbers of suitably recruited staff were employed. Staff managed medicines safely and followed good infection control and prevention practices to protect people from harm. Staff learnt lessons from previous events that may not have gone as well as expected.

People's needs were met, through effective assessment and reviewing of support. People were supported by suitably trained staff who knew about people’s needs and diagnosed conditions. People led comfortable lives having their own designated spaces in a suitably designed premises. Staff worked well with other social and healthcare professionals, for the benefit of people they supported. 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.

People’s differences were understood and respected. Staff also respected one another. The provider promoted people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged their independence. People’s views on their care and support were listened to and they were supported by caring and compassionate staff. 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.

Staff provided individualised support to people in a way that suited them best, and through following person-centred support plans. People's communication needs were assessed and well met using systems and good practice. Their concerns, and any raised by families, were satisfactorily responded to, addressed and managed. People were assured a good end of life experience when the time came.

The registered manager promoted a positive culture among the workforce. They and the staff team

understood and acted on their duty of care responsibilities to be open and honest. Staff were clear about their roles, monitored people's changing needs and sought to improve the care people received. They engaged and involved people in deciding what care they were given and how. Partnership working was well established with other organisations or agencies for the benefit of people that used the service. All of this meant people experienced a well-run service where their needs were met.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the Care Quality Commission website at

www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection.

At the last inspection the service was rated good (published 1 July 2017).

Why we inspected.

This was a planned inspection based on the 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.

Inspection carried out on 31 May 2017

During a routine inspection

Foxglove Care Limited – 82 Willowdale is a residential care home for two people who have a learning disability or autism spectrum disorder. The premise is a three-bedroomed residential property on a housing development to the north of Kingston-upon-Hull. There is front, side and rear garden space that is enclosed and extensively used by people that use the service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People were protected from the risk of harm because safeguarding systems were in place and staff were trained in safeguarding adults from abuse. Risks were also managed and reduced so that people avoided injury or harm. Staff understood their responsibilities in these areas.

The premises were safely maintained and documentary evidence showed this. Staffing numbers met people’s need and rosters cross referenced with those staff on duty. Recruitment systems ensured staff were suitable to support people. Medicines were safely managed.

Staff were qualified and competent and they received regular supervision and annual appraisal of their performance.

People’s rights were protected. They were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff ensured they had people’s consent before supporting them.

People received good nutrition and hydration to maintain their levels of health and wellbeing. The premises were suitably designed and furnished for providing support to younger adults with a learning disability.

Staff were kind and knew about people’s needs and preferences. People’s wellbeing, privacy, dignity and independence were respected. This ensured people felt satisfied and were enabled to take control of their lives.

Person-centred care plans reflected people’s needs and instructed staff on how best to meet those needs. They were regularly reviewed. People enjoyed pastimes and activities if they wished to and developed their living skills. People had very good family connections and support networks.

An effective complaint system was used and complaints were investigated without bias.

We found there had been a registered manager in post for the last seven months. People had the benefit of a culture and management style that was positive and inclusive. An effective system checked the quality of the service using audits, satisfaction surveys and meetings.

People made their views known through discussion, gestures and their individual communication methods that staff had learned to understand. Privacy and confidentiality of information were maintained as records were held securely in the premises.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection carried out on 22 May and 3 June 2015

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 22 May and 3 June 2015. At our last inspection on 14 October 2013, the registered provider was compliant with all the regulations we assessed.

82 Willowdale is owned by Foxglove Care Limited. It is registered to provide accommodation for two people who may have a learning disability. The service is located in an established housing development close to local shops and amenities. There is easy access to public transport and sports and social facilities are nearby. At the time of our inspection there were two people living at the service.

The people who used the service had complex needs and were not all able to tell us fully their experiences. We used a Short Observational Framework for Inspection [SOFI] to help us understand the experiences of the people who used the service. SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand people who were unable to speak with us. We observed people being treated with dignity and respect and enjoying the interaction with staff. Staff knew how to communicate with people and involve them in how they were supported and cared for.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission [CQC]. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibilities for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of harm and abuse by staff knowledge and safeguarding training. Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and they made sure risk assessments were carried out. Staff took steps to minimise risks to people’s wellbeing without taking away people’s rights to make decisions. People lived in a safe environment and staff ensured equipment used within the service was regularly checked and maintained.

We found people’s health and nutritional needs were met and they accessed professional advice and treatment from community services when required. People who used the service received care in a person centred way with care plans describing their preferences for care. Staff followed this guidance.

Positive interactions were observed between staff and the people they cared for. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and staff supported people to be independent and to make their own choices. When people were assessed by staff as not having the capacity to make their own decisions, meetings were held with relevant others to discuss options and make decisions in the person’s best interest.

We found staff were recruited in a safe way and in sufficient numbers to meet the current needs of the people who used the service. Staff had access to induction, training, supervision and appraisal which supported them to feel skilled and confident when providing care to people.

Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of safely. Training records showed staff had received training in the safe handling and administration of medicines.

People who used the service were seen to engage in a number of activities both within the service and the local community. They were encouraged to pursue hobbies, social interests and to go on holiday. Staff also supported people to maintain relationships with their families and friends.

Inspection carried out on 14 October 2013

During a routine inspection

People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement. In discussions with staff they described how they supported people to be independent and to access community facilities. At the time of our inspection the people who used the service were later going out on a planned trip to the local fair. This ensured that people were involved in the community and their choices were respected.

A relative we spoke with told us, �I am always involved in care decisions and they would seek consent before any changes in care. I am attending an epilepsy review this week at the service.� This ensured that any decisions made were in the person�s best interest when they were unable to make decisions for themselves.

Staff were able to demonstrate their knowledge of appropriate support plan intervention from other health care professionals. This ensured that staff were confident and knowledgeable in respect of a person�s specific care needs.

We looked at records that confirmed the service was sufficiently supported by well trained staff. The manager told us the provider had a system in place for when staff were not available. This included staff support from the company�s other services or the use of contracted bank staff.

We looked at the timescales for responding to complaints. The service had responded as appropriate which ensured complaints were dealt with in a timely manner.

Inspection carried out on 5 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. We spoke with the manager, one member of staff and two relatives.

We saw that activities of people were recorded in support plans and were based on a person�s preference and choice. For example one person liked walking, bowling and trips in the car

A relative we spoke with commented positively about the service. Comments included: �I turn up to the service to see my relative unannounced most times and if I see something I don�t agree with the staff always deal with this quickly and explain their actions to me.�

We saw menus on display in the kitchen area for people who use the service which were in standard text format and in pictorial format to aid understanding of available choice.

We saw management checks of medication records which was completed on a monthly basis and observed that the home had appropriate systems to identify recording concerns.

We saw that people�s rooms were personalised with their own items such as family photographs, pictures and ornaments. This showed the service promoted people's independence and supported their daily living activities.

Staff received training about the specific needs of people whose behaviour that may challenge the service; for example challenging behaviour, epilepsy and autism.

Inspection carried out on 5 December 2011

During a routine inspection

We did not speak directly to the people who lived in the home.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)