The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Homefield College Limited - 42 St Marys Road

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Homefield College, Sileby, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE12 7TL (01509) 814827

Provided and run by:
Homefield College Limited

All Inspections

10 May 2016

During a routine inspection

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.

2 September 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of our inspection there were only three people using the service. When we arrived we saw that people were sitting in the dining room and getting ready to go out for the day. One person told us they were going to Loughborough to do some shopping and visit the charity shops. Due to people's limited and specialised communication we were unable to speak with people about the service in detail. However, we observed that people seemed comfortable and confident with staff.

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 three 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.

People were cared for in a safe and suitable environment.

Records we looked at were accurate and fit for purpose. However, people's personal records were not stored securely.

10 October 2012

During a routine inspection

The main college site - Homefield college - is a very busy site. It presently has 13 residential students and can have up to 25 day students using the facilities from across the area.

During the time of our visit the expert by experience (who was with the inspector on this visit) noted that people at the college sites appeared to be content and well cared for, and all people using the services and carers who were spoken to were happy with the provision. Staff appeared caring and competent.

During the time spent by the two inspectors at the main college campus we were able to communicate with a number of students, with some help from the staff team on duty. It was the case that within that busy environment (13 residential students and up to a further 25 day students) the students were enjoying the activities they were doing.

Whilst we did not observe formal education classes we were able to spend time interacting with students at break time and during the lunch hour. There was a lot of activity, for example, some students had been shopping with their support staff so were making their own meals. They were very pleased to show us what they'd bought and even agreed to let us watch them make up their sandwiches.

People arriving and moving around the college appeared to be smiling and willing to go to their activities. Staff appeared confident, friendly and were treating people with dignity and respect.

We saw staff use a wide variety of methods to provide information that would support people who use services, or others acting on their behalf, to make decisions about care, treatment and support. This was evidenced visibly but also by the description of the regular house meetings/college meetings and 1:1 meetings that take place. The college also supports the students individually with behaviour management and speech and language therapy.

We contacted two parents who had children at the college, this was their comments:

'People are treated with dignity and respect, my son is happy, he never minds going back and loves to be with the people there. He has good relationships, is able to talk to me, and is encouraged to talk generally, I've never seen anything to concern me about abuse."

"There is a good line of verbal and written communication. Anything that is raised is dealt with immediately. I get a copy of care plans, and each term a copy of weekly activities."

"The college is absolutely fabulous. I can't say a bad word about it, there have been a couple of problems and the college were straight onto it. My son is well settled, more confident. We get regular updates and they have an out hours contact open door policy about making telephone contact with them. I have no concerns about safeguarding or quality of staff."

One of the students said, "I enjoy making shopping lists with the help of my support worker. I have to estimate how much the food will cost and then we go to the shop to buy the food. Sometimes I find it easier than other times. When we get back home I cook the meal I'd planned. My support worker will help me if I want it."

19 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 of the outcome areas. Of those spoken with none could remember being involved with or included in a questionnaire or quality assurance exercise. When we spoke to people about going out, one person commented 'I like going out in the bus' and also spoke positively about visits of her mother and father. Other people told us they felt happy and secure, and if they had a problem they would speak to staff about it.

We spoke with the staff group and found they were aware of how to safeguard people and how to recognise different forms of abuse. We observed staff speak with people in a friendly and respectful manner, and spoke with staff who were aware of peoples' care plans and risk assessments and what level of support each individual needed with their personal care. We also confirmed with staff that they went through an appropriate recruitment process and had all the necessary checks in place prior to working with vulnerable people.