Archived: Homefield College Limited - 139 Homefield Road

Homefield College Limited – 139 Homefield Road is a residential care home providing personal care to three people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder at the time of the inspection. The service is registered to support up to four people.

Homefield College Limited - 139 Homefield Road is a bungalow, all living spaces are on one level. At the time of inspection, the fourth bedroom was used as an office with no plans to convert this to a bedroom for another person to move to 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

Improvements were needed to managerial quality assurance systems and processes to enable the registered manager to have a better oversight of the service. People knew the management team by name as they regularly provided support to people. People, relatives and staff provided positive feedback about the management team. The service sought feedback from people about their care experience to ensure any issues or concerns were promptly addressed.

Staff received training to meet people’s individual needs. However, we found training undertaken for a specific health need was not accredited. During our inspection the registered manager co-ordinated appropriate training for staff and implemented practice observations to ensure care was being delivered by staff as planned.

MCA assessments had been undertaken, improvements were needed to the recording of best interest decisions. However, we found people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive ways possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s needs were assessed before receiving care from the service to inform the development of their care plans.

People received care from staff that were kind, caring and compassionate. People and staff had built positive relationships together and enjoyed spending time together. Staff were respectful and open to people of all faiths and beliefs. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People were supported by staff that took time to find out about their hobbies, interests and what was important to them. People accessed planned daytime activities, and outside of these engaged in activities of their choosing. Easily accessible complaints information was available to people living at the home. People knew who to speak with if they had any concerns and felt confident their concerns would be addressed.

People felt safe and were supported by staff that kept them safe from harm or abuse. Medicines were administered on time and people were supported by staff that had been safely recruited. Staff had a good knowledge of risks associated with providing people’s care. Accidents and incidents were reported, and lessons were learned.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good. (Published 10 August 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.

Homefield College Limited – 139 Homefield Road is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to four people with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorder who do not require nursing care. Accommodation is provided in a bungalow in Sileby. At this inspection, there were three people living in the service.

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection on 2 February 2015, the service was rated Good overall with Requires Improvement in the Effective domain because one person had been identified as not having the mental capacity to consent to a specific area of their care. The mental capacity act had not been followed to make sure that the support the person received was in their best interests.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall.

People told us that they felt safe when receiving support from staff at 139 Homefield Road. People were protected against the risk of abuse. Staff recognised the signs of abuse, what to look out for and knew how to report any concerns. Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed.

Staff followed guidance to minimise identified risks to people's health, safety and welfare. There were enough staff to keep people safe. The provider had appropriate arrangements in place to check the suitability and fitness of new staff.

There had been a change in how staff were deployed. This had been discussed with staff prior to the changes being made. However, staff felt that this continued to be a concern for them. The provider agreed to discuss this further with staff to resolve their concerns.

Staff received regular training and supervision to help them to meet people's needs effectively. Staff completed an induction to enable them to get to know the service. Team meetings had not been held regularly.

People were supported to follow a balanced diet. Where someone had a specific diet that they followed staff had a good understanding of this and guidance was in place for staff to follow. People received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access healthcare services.

Each person had an up to date support plan that was centred on them as an individual. This provided staff guidance on how to meet people’s support needs and their likes, dislikes and preferences. These were reviewed regularly.

People were encouraged to participate in activities, pursue their interests and to maintain relationships with people that mattered to them.

People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the MCA.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. They ensured people's privacy was maintained. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives.

People had access to a complaint’s procedure and felt confident to raise any concerns that they may have.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. The registered manager ensured that they met their legal responsibilities and obligations.

People, relatives and staff all told us that they could approach the registered manager. Staff told us that they felt supported by them.

There were systems and processes in place to monitor and review the quality of the service that people received. Where areas for improvement were identified an action plan was put in place to address these.

People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about how the service could be improved. This was used to make changes and improvements that people wanted.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

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 caf' known as 'Barrow Treats' in a neighbouring village and people were supported to work within the caf' as part of their timetable of activities. In addition, the service also had an internet caf' 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 two people 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.