You are here

Homefield College Limited - 51 Greedon Rise Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 August 2017

We inspected Homefield College Limited – 51 Greedon Rise on 26 June 2017. The visit was unannounced. This meant that the staff and the provider did not know that we would be visiting.

Homefield College Limited – 51 Greedon Rise is located in Sileby, Leicestershire. The service provides accommodation for up to three people who have a learning disability or autism. There were three people using the service at the time of our inspection. At the last inspection in February 2015, the service was rated overall Good however, required improvement in Effective because the staff team had limited knowledge with regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). At this inspection we found that the service remained Good and improvements had been made around staffs knowledge of MCA .

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

People told us they felt safe living at Homefield College Limited – 51 Greedon Rise. Relatives we spoke with agreed that people were safe living there. Staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities for keeping people safe and were aware of what to look out for if they suspected that someone was at risk of harm. People's care and support needs had been identified and the associated risks had been assessed and managed. Where risks had been identified these had, where ever possible, been minimised to better protect people's health and welfare. Appropriate processes were followed when new members of staff had been recruited to make sure they were suitable to work there. People received their medicines as prescribed and in a safe way and there were appropriate systems in place to audit the management of medicines.

The staff team were appropriately trained and were supported through supervisions and staff meetings. They were aware of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which meant people’s human rights were protected. People had access to all of the relevant health care services that they needed to keep them well. They were supported to maintain a healthy, balanced diet and were fully involved in the development of the menus that were in place. The menus catered for each person’s individual needs and preferences.

The staff team were kind and caring and they treated people with dignity and respect. They involved people in making day to day decisions about their care and support and people told us that the staff team knew them well.

People were supported in a way they preferred because plans of care had been developed with them and with people who knew them well. People were regularly reminded of what to do if they had a concern of any kind.

Staff members felt supported by the management team. They explained that they were given the opportunity to meet with them on a regular basis and felt able to speak with them if they had any concerns or suggestions of any kind.

People’s views of the service were sought through meetings and informal chats. Systems were in place to regularly monitor the service being provided and a business continuity plan was available for the staff team to follow in the event of an emergency or untoward event.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 August 2017

The service remained safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 August 2017

The service was effective.

The staff team had the knowledge they needed to meet people’s needs.

People's consent to their care and support had been sought and the staff team understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were involved in the planning of their meals and menus catered for their individual needs.

People were supported to access healthcare services when they needed them.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 August 2017

The service remained caring.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 August 2017

The service remained responsive.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 August 2017

The service remained well led.