Background to this inspection
Updated
22 June 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on 10 May 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by an inspector and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert had experience of caring for someone who used this type of service.
Before our inspection, we reviewed the Provider Information return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed information we held about the service and information we had received about the service from people who contacted us. We contacted the local authority that had funding responsibility for some of the people who used the service.
We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the service was managed. This included two people’s plans of care and associated documents including risk assessments. We looked at four staff files including their recruitment and training records. We also looked at documentation about the service that was given to staff and people using the service and policies and procedures that the provider had in place. We spoke with the registered manager, two senior care staff, and two care staff
We met people who used the service and we spoke with three people. We spoke with three relatives of people who used the service. This was to gather their views of the service being provided.
Updated
22 June 2016
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection that took place on 10 May 2016. At the last inspection completed on 30 August 2013, we found the provider had not met the regulations in two areas; the service had not followed key principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, and records were not stored securely. At this inspection we found the provider had made the required improvements and the regulations were being met.
Homefield College is a specialist college service. It is registered to provide accommodation for up to 17 people who have a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder, a sensory impairment and who were young adults. The college is currently providing short breaks to people which they called residential experiences. The college was located on two floors. Each person could choose which bedroom they wanted to use for their stay. There were kitchen facilities available within the college along with a communal lounge, games room and art room. At the time of inspection there were five people using the service.
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.
People received care and support that was responsive to their needs and preferences. People and their relatives participated in developing their support plans.
Support plans provided information about people so staff knew how they wanted to be supported. People were encouraged to develop their independent living skills. A varied range of activities were on offer for people to participate in if they chose to do so.
People were protected from the risk of harm at the service because staff had undertaken training to recognise and respond to safeguarding concerns. They had a good understanding about what safeguarding meant and how to report it. The building was well maintained and kept in a safe condition.
There were effective systems in place to manage risks and this helped staff to know how to support people safely. Where people displayed behaviour that was challenging the training and guidance given to staff helped them to manage situations in a consistent and positive way that protected the person, other people using the service and staff.
People’s medicines were handled safely and were given to them in accordance with their prescriptions.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. They were recruited using robust procedures to make sure people were supported by staff with the right skills and attributes. Staff received appropriate support through a structured induction and regular supervision. There was an on-going training programme to provide and update staff on safe ways of working.
People were encouraged to maintain a balanced diet. We saw that people were able to choose their meals and were involved in making them.
People were supported to make their own decisions. Staff and managers had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found that appropriate assessments of capacity had been made.
People were involved in decisions about their support. Staff treated people with respect.
People and staff felt the service was well managed. The service was well organised and led by a registered manager who understood their responsibilities under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.
Systems were in place which assessed and monitored the quality of the service. This included obtaining feedback from people who used the service and their relatives. Systems for recording and managing complaints, safeguarding concerns and accidents and incidents were in place.