We carried out a review of the data available to us about Colne House on 6 July 2023. 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 Colne House, you can give feedback on this service.
Colne House is registered to provide accommodation for persons, with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, who require personal care. The home can accommodate up to eight people. At the time of our inspection five people were living at the service.
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 this service and what we found
There was an open, person centred culture that promoted good practice. People told us they were happy with the care they received. Staff and relatives were positive about the culture and ethos of the home. The registered manager led by example and was respected by staff. Staff reported a high level of job satisfaction.
People reported feeling safe. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding people and when to raise concerns. People received their medicines safely and recruitment practices were safe. Risks associated with people’s care were assessed and monitored. Systems to manage environmental risks such as fires safety were robust.
Assessments were person centred and care was responsive to people’s needs. There was an established staff team that was motivated and well trained to carry out their roles effectively. The home was accessible and had been adapted to meet people’s needs.
A committed and caring staff team treated people with dignity and respect. People’s communication needs were met. Staff consulted people about the running of the service in regular service user meetings.
Staff supported people to have maximum choice and control of their lives and supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
The last rating for this service was good (published 9 September 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.
At the last inspection, the service was good. At this inspection we found the service remained good and the service met all relevant fundamental standards.
Staff understood how to keep people safe and were aware of the process to follow if they had any concerns. Risks had been assessed and recorded to ensure people were protected from harm without overly restricting people’s freedom.
People 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 received on-going support from the management team through a programme of regular supervision and appraisals and they had been trained to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to care for people.
Food and drink was tailored to people's individual needs using locally sourced fresh produce and we observed staff supporting people appropriately to maintain their nutritional and hydration needs.
Positive relationships between staff and people who lives at Colne House were evident. People's independence was promoted well by staff who understood how to maximise their independence.
There was clear evidence of person-centred care. People were involved in activities based upon their established routines and preferences. Care records contained information on how to support people but some records contained some out of date information.
The registered manager was visible in the service and communication was open, honest and transparent. Staff had clear direction and were sure about their roles and responsibilities. Systems and processes for ensuring the quality of the service were securely and effectively in place.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
We carried out this inspection on 2 October 2014. This was an unannounced inspection.
Colne House is a small care home providing accommodation and support for up to eight people with learning disabilities. It is part of the Bridgewood Trust; a charity organisation which provides residential, domiciliary and day services to people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection, there were six people using the service.
It is a condition of registration that the provider has a registered manager at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. During our inspection, there was a registered manager in post.
We found the service to be safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led. We saw that people were being cared for appropriately in line with the legal requirement s of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards
We found people’s care records were regularly reviewed and updated, with the involvement of people and their relatives, to reflect people’s changing needs. We also found care records were person-centred and held current details of people’s preferences. Care records also contained information regarding the multi-agency work undertaken by the service.
We found there were usually enough staff at the service who were adequately trained and received refresher training, as required.
We checked the medication trolley and Medication Administration Records (MAR) and found these were managed well. However, we found a discrepancy with the stock check for controlled drugs stored and administered at the home. We spoke with the manager about this, who was able to explain where the discrepancy was and why it was there.
We saw in staff personnel records that all staff received an induction on commencement of employment at the service, along with any training requirements. We also found refresher training was carried out regularly and as required.
We found that people who used the service had been asked for their consent to care and treatment. We saw evidence that, where people had limited capacity to understand decisions they were to make, alternative methods of communication were used to ensure the person knew what they were being asked for consent for. We also observed staff knocked on people’s bedroom doors before entering, ensuring their privacy and dignity was respected.
We saw there was fresh fruit available for people. We also observed people were able to enter and leave the kitchen area as they wished, with access to food and drink at all times.
In care records we looked at, we found the service had involved, or sought to involve relevant healthcare professionals in the planning of care and treatment for people. We also saw evidence of regular attendance at the service by other professionals, including social workers and speech and language therapists.
We saw an activity board at the home which detailed activities that took place at the home on a rolling four-week basis. We also saw evidence of people at the home partaking in these activities through photographs on the activity board, in people’s rooms and in communal areas. We also found rooms to be personalised, with posters on walls and items of interest to the person present. We found a ‘Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults’ poster on the activity board for people to read and the complaints procedure was on a table outside the main office.
We found regular audits were carried out at the home and any issues identified were addressed and signed off when completed. We spoke with people who used the service, staff and management, who all gave positive feedback.
We spoke with the acting manager, two support workers, an agency support worker and four relatives of people who lived at the home.
Relatives we spoke with were positive about the home, comments included:
'The staff are always helpful. I have no qualms at all, the staff are very welcoming'.
'I have no concerns at all, the staff phone me all the time'.
'Staff ring me if there is a problem, I talk to (my relative) on the phone'.
During our visit we observed staff treated people with dignity and respect. People at the home were involved in making decisions about the support they received. We looked at two peoples' support plans. We saw people's individual needs had been assessed and plans for their care and support had been developed from this information.
We checked medication records for three individual medications and found them to be correct.
There appeared to be sufficient numbers of staff and they acted appropriately when undertaking their roles and responsibilities.
Documentation also showed an effective system for auditing the quality of service.
Staff told us that people were well looked after