You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 December 2017

Church Farm Bungalow provides accommodation, care and support for a maximum of 12 adults who have a learning disability, some of whom may also have physical disabilities and/or sensory impairments. There were 10 people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

At the last inspection on 11 September 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

People were safe and were protected from avoidable harm. Staff were aware of the risks people faced and followed agreed guidelines to reduce these risks. Health and safety and fire safety were carried out regularly checks to ensure the home was safe and well maintained. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed to any necessary remedial actions had been taken. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

Staff were always available when people needed them. People were protected from abuse because staff understood their roles in protecting people and knew how to raise concerns if they witnessed abuse or poor practice. People were protected by the provider’s recruitment procedures. The provider carried out appropriate checks on staff before they were employed.

Staff had the training and support they needed to carry out their roles. All staff attended an induction when they started work and had access to ongoing training. The provider encouraged and supported staff to attend achieve further qualifications relevant to their roles.

People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were respected. Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent to their care and how people communicated their decisions. People who lacked capacity received appropriate support when decisions that affected them were made. The provider ensured that all relevant people were consulted to ensure decisions were made in people’s best interests. Applications for DoLS authorisations had been submitted where restrictions were imposed upon people to keep them safe,

People were able to make choices about the food they ate and were supported to maintain a healthy diet. Staff ensured that individual support guidelines around diet and nutrition were followed. People were supported to maintain good health and to obtain treatment when they needed it. Staff had developed good working relationships with health and social care professionals and involved these professionals in people’s care where necessary. Each person had a health action plan which detailed their health needs and the support they needed.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate. People had positive relationships with the staff who supported them. Relatives told us that staff knew their family members well and provided care and support that enhanced their family members’ lives. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their dignity. They respected people’s individual rights and promoted their independence. People were supported to make choices about their care and to maintain relationships with their friends and families. People who wished to remain at the home towards the end of their lives were supported to do so. Staff had worked closely with healthcare professionals to ensure people received high quality care when they had life-limiting conditions.

People received care that was personalised to their individual needs. Support plans reflected people’s needs, preferences and ambitions. People’s needs were kept under review and their support plans updated if their needs changed. Staff understood people’s individual communication needs, which was important in

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 December 2017

The service remains Good.

People were protected from avoidable risks.

There were enough staff to meet people�s needs and keep them safe.

People would continue to receive care in the event of an emergency.

Staff understood their roles in keeping people safe.

People were protected by the provider�s recruitment procedures.

Medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 December 2017

The service remains Good.

Staff had access to the training, supervision and support they needed to carry out their roles.

People�s care was provided in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People were supported to eat food they enjoyed whilst maintaining a healthy diet.

Staff worked closely with other professionals to ensure people�s healthcare needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 December 2017

The service remains Good.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate.

People had positive relationships with the staff who supported them.

Staff treated people with respect and maintained their privacy and dignity.

Staff supported people in a way that promoted their independence.

People with life-limiting conditions received the care they needed to stay at home towards the end of their lives.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 December 2017

The service remains Good.

People received individualised care that reflected their wishes, needs and preferences.

People had access to activities they enjoyed.

People were involved in their local community.

People were encouraged to give their views about the service and the provider responded well to feedback.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 December 2017

The service remains Good.

The registered manager provided good leadership for the service.

Regular quality monitoring checks ensured people received safe and effective care and support.

Staff worked co-operatively with other professionals to provide the care people needed.

Records were well organised and up to date.