You are here

Homefield College Limited - 51 Greedon Rise Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 26 June 2017

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 26 February 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 26 February 2015 and was unannounced.

At the last inspection on 3 September 2013 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements. We asked them to improve practice relating to obtaining people’s consent and acting in accordance with it. Following that inspection the provider sent us an action plan to tell us the improvements they were going to make. At this inspection we found improvements had been made to meet the relevant requirements.

Homefield College Limited – 51 Greedon Rise provides accommodation, care and support for up to three people with learning disabilities. On the day of our visit there were three people living at the home. Accommodation was located over two floors.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Throughout our inspection we observed people were very comfortable and relaxed with the staff who supported them. We saw people had unrestricted access to their all communal areas of the service. People’s bedrooms were kept locked and each person had a key to their room to enable them to access it as required. Staff respected people’s decisions about whether or not they were able to enter their rooms. People also had their own key to the front door.

There were plans in place to ensure that if an emergency situation or untoward incident occurred that people would be kept safe and these were readily available for staff.

People were involved in producing their support plan and they kept a copy in their own room in an accessible format. This helped people to understand the information in it. People participated in a variety of activities and group sessions that reflected their hobbies and interests and people told us that they had choices about the sessions they attended.

Staff received a thorough induction period and they felt well supported in their roles. They had a detailed knowledge of people’s specific support needs and supported people in line with their preferences.

Staff’s knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) was very limited and they had not all received training on these subjects. The manager was aware of this. The MCA is legislation that sets out the requirements that ensures where appropriate; decisions are made in people’s best interests when they are unable to do this for themselves. The DoLS are a law that requires assessment and authorisation if a person lacks mental capacity and needs to have their freedom restricted to keep them safe. There was a policy and procedure in place for staff to follow in relation to MCA but there was no guidance available for staff in relation to DoLS.

Quality assurance audits were carried out and where necessary actions were taken to improve the quality of the service. People felt that they were able to raise any concerns or complaints. There were one to one meetings and weekly service meetings held that people invited to participate in and provide feedback about their views and opinions.

Inspection carried out on 3 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with both people who used the service. One person had just returned from drama and told us they really enjoyed the singing at this session. They also told us that staff were helpful. We met the other person whilst they were taking part in horticulture class. They said “it’s a nice place, nice residents and staff – I like it here”.

We found that people had access to a wide range of community facilities and courses, dependent on their individual needs and choices. These included activities such as learning independent living skills, horticulture, art, drama and swimming. The service had a fully working café known as ‘Barrow Treats’ in a neighbouring village and people were supported to work within the café as part of their timetable of activities. In addition, the service also had an internet café known as ‘Sip and Surf’ in Loughborough. People were encouraged and supported to participate in cleaning, food shopping and meal preparation and we found that people’s independence was promoted by the service.

We looked at the records of one peorson who used the service and found care plans were detailed and thorough and provided clear guidance to staff about how the persons’ care should be delivered.

However, we found that the service did not have suitable arrangements in place for obtaining people’s consent and acting in accordance with the best interests of the person when they were unable to consent to the care and treatment being provided.

Staff had been appropriately screened to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of people who used the service and treated people with dignity and respect.

Records we looked at were accurate and fit for purpose.

Inspection carried out on 11 October 2012

During a routine inspection

One person told me that he gets looked after very well by the staff and they are kind to him and sometimes they are funny. He also said they get him involved in household chores which he doesn't really like, but shares these things with others.

"I love going to theatre club and generally performing. I have a karaoke machine in my bedroom which I will show you."

"I love different types of music and have loads of CD’s. I also have an electric guitar with an amplifier and an acoustic guitar. I’ll play you a song." (He did)

"The staff always treat me with dignity and respect. They are aware of the need to allow me privacy when I need it. I have that choice anyway."

Inspection carried out on 29 September 2011

During a routine inspection

Because some of the people we spoke with, have limited and specialised communication, we were unable to directly ascertain what people felt about their experiences in all the outcome areas.

We observed staff speak with people in a friendly and respectful manner, we also spoke with staff that were aware of peoples’ care plans and risk assessments and what level of support each individual needed with their personal care.

We spoke to people in the home who told us they felt happy and secure, and if they had a problem they would speak to staff about it. Of those spoken with none could remember being involved with or included in a questionnaire or quality assurance exercise.

Some of the opinions expressed included “on Sunday we go to church and then cook our Sunday dinner”, “I enjoy my time at the weekend”, and of the staff group, “X is a nice person, the staff are marvellous”.

We spoke with the staff group and found they were aware of how to safeguard people and how to recognise different forms of abuse. The also confirmed that they had completed a suitable recruitment process and had the necessary checks in place prior to working alone with vulnerable people. Staff said they have access to individual supervision, appraisal and general staff meetings. The staff spoken with stated they felt supported throughout this process and felt they could raise any issues in the privacy of supervisions or in the public forum of a meeting.

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