You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 25 October 2017

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 11 September 2015

During a routine inspection

Church Farm Bungalow provides accommodation, care and support for a maximum of 12 adults with learning disabilities who also have physical disabilities and/or sensory impairments. There were 10 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The inspection took place on 11 September 2015 and was unannounced.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities should they suspect abuse was taking place and knew how to report any concerns they had.

Risks to people had been assessed and control measures had been put in place to minimise these risks. There were plans in place to ensure that people’s care would not be interrupted in the event of an emergency.

There were always enough staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs in a timely way.

The provider had a robust recruitment procedure to help ensure only suitable staff were employed.

Staff had access to the training and support they needed and worked well together as a team.

Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which meant that people’s support and care was provided in the least restrictive way.

People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and dietary needs were managed effectively. People were encouraged to be involved in choosing what they ate.

Medicines were managed safely. People’s health needs were monitored and staff had taken appropriate action when they identified a change in a person’s needs. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals where necessary to ensure that people received the care they needed.

People had good relationships with the staff who supported them. Staff were kind and caring and treated people with respect. They supported people in a way that maintained their dignity and promoted independence. Relatives said that staff were dedicated and worked hard to ensure people’s needs were met.

People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the service and kept under review,.. Care plans were person-centred and reflected people’s individual needs, preferences and goals. They provided detailed information for staff about how to provide care in the way the person preferred.

People were involved in decisions that affected them. Staff liaised effectively with other people who could support the person in making decisions, such as relatives and healthcare professionals.

People had opportunities to go out regularly and to be involved in their local community. They had access to a range of activities and were supported to enjoy active social lives. People were supported to maintain relationships with their families and to share in celebrations and events.

Relatives and staff told us the registered manager was approachable and supportive and provided good leadership for the service. They said the registered manager encouraged contributions to the improvement and development of the service.

Staff understood the provider’s philosophy of care and upheld these values in their work, treating people with respect, promoting choice and decision-making and supporting people to participate in their community. The provider had obtained best practice guidance where appropriate and these guidelines had been embedded in staff practice.

Records relating to people’s care and the health and safety of the premises were accurate, up to date and stored appropriately. There were effective systems of quality monitoring and auditing. The service improvement plan demonstrated that an action plan was drawn up to address any shortfalls identified.

Inspection carried out on 22 May 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with four members of staff as well as the registered manager. We carried out some observations as we were not able to speak to most people who used the service due to their complex communication needs. However, two people were able to tell us that they liked living at Church Farm Bungalow.

We saw that staff treated people with respect and dignity. We observed staff giving people choices. For example, we saw staff painting one person�s nails. They showed them nail varnish in three different colours and asked �which colour would you like?�

We noted that throughout the day people were smiling and looked happy and relaxed. We saw that staff treated people kindly and attended to people�s needs promptly. For example, one staff member noticed a person�s foot had dropped off the footplate of their wheelchair, and placed it back to avoid them getting injured.

We saw that the home was clean and tidy and people�s bedrooms were well kept. Toilets and bathrooms were clean and with no unpleasant odours.

We saw that most staff training was up to date and supervisions and appraisals were almost completed. We saw minutes of staff meetings that took place regularly.

We saw that the provider had a complaints policy and that there was a complaints log to record any complaints received. However, we were told that there had not been any complaints.

Inspection carried out on 14 January 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

On this inspection we saw improvements had been made to people�s care plans and up to date risk assessments were in place.

Inspection carried out on 20 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We were unable to speak most people who used the service as they had complex needs which meant they were unable to tell us their experiences. We spoke to one person and two relatives of people who lived at the service who all told us that they felt that people who used the service were well looked after.

One relative told us that they felt the home was not as homely looking as they would like. They told us that the staff always �Made a fuss� of the people who lived there.

Another relative told us that they wanted to be more involved in the persons care plan. Both the relatives told us that they were not consulted in the plan of care for the people who lived there.

We also spoke to two health care professionals who had visited the service. They all told us that they felt that staff were caring. One person told us that the staff were �Absolutely brilliant.�

During our inspection we saw that people were being treated with respect and there was a happy and relaxed atmosphere.

We found that that care plans were not up to date and there were very few risk assessments for each person who used the service. Staff told us that care plans and risk assessments were not up to date because they had not had the time to do them.

During our inspection we saw several examples of staff acting in a caring and supportive manner.

We saw that each person�s room was decorated individually and were told that people could personalise their rooms in the way that they wanted to.

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