The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Homefield College Limited - 151 Ratcliffe Road

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

151 Ratcliffe Road, Sileby, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE12 7PX (01509) 816794

Provided and run by:
Homefield College Limited

All Inspections

8 June 2017

During a routine inspection

Homefield College Limited - 151 Ratcliffe Road provides accommodation, care and support for up to three people with learning disabilities. People had previously attended Homefield College before moving to their current home. At the time of our inspection there were three people living in the home. At the last inspection, in March 2015, the service was rated Good. However, we rated the effective domain as requiring improvements. At this inspection we found that the required improvements had been made and the service remained Good overall.

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 continued to receive safe care. Staff were appropriately recruited. People were protected from the risk of avoidable harm. Where risks were identified for people while they were receiving support these had been assessed and control measures put in place. People received their medicines in line with their prescription.

There had been a change in how staff were deployed and this had resulted in an increase in agency staff used at the service. Some relatives and staff felt that this had a negative impact on the service that people received although it was improving. There were enough staff available to meet people's needs safely.

The care that people received was effective. Permanent staff had access to the support, supervision and training that they required to work effectively in their roles. Where agency staff were used their training was reviewed to make sure that this was suitable to meet people's needs.

People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff and the registered manager had an understanding of the MCA. Staff told us that they sought people’s consent before delivering their support.

People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition. The registered manager knew what actions to take if there were concerns about people's weight. People had access to healthcare services.

People developed positive relationships with staff who were caring and treated them with respect, kindness and dignity.

People had plans of care in place that were focused on them as individuals. This allowed staff to provide consistent support in line with people’s personal preferences.

People and their relatives felt they could raise a concern and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage any complaints that they may receive.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The registered manager was a visible role model in the home. People, their relatives and staff told us that they felt confident that they could approach the manager and that they would listen. There were quality assurance systems in place to monitor and review the quality of the service that was provided. The change in how staff were deployed had been discussed with staff prior to this taking place. The provider agreed to discuss staff concerns about this further with them to try and address these.

3 March 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 3 March 2015 and was unannounced.

At the last inspection on 4 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 about the improvements they were going to make. At this inspection we found improvements had been made to meet the relevant requirements.

Homefield College Limited – 151 Ratcliffe Road 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.

People felt safe at the service and staff had a good understanding of how to identify and report any safeguarding concerns. Where concerns had been raised the provider had taken appropriate action.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to ensure that people’s medicines were managed safely and people were provided with privacy while they had their medicines. There were arrangements in place and guidance for staff to follow in the event of an emergency or untoward event.

Staff had not received training about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) but there was a policy and guidance in place for staff to follow to ensure they acted in accordance with it. 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. Staff had not received any training on the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and there was no guidance in place for them to follow to ensure that they acted in accordance with it, although at the time of our inspection this legislation did not apply to anybody living at the service. 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.

People were supported to access appropriate health professionals when they needed to and referrals to healthcare professionals were made without delay. People were provided with choices and guidance about their diets.

People’s independence was promoted and their privacy was respected. Weekly meetings were held where people had the opportunity to express their views. People were involved in choices and decisions about their own care and support plans were developed with people in an accessible format. They contained information about people’s preferences, likes and dislikes.

There were quality assurance systems in place and actions identified by the audits were addressed. Questionnaires requesting feedback about the service were sent out relatives, although the results of these and actions taken in relation to the information were not shared. Relatives and staff were kept updated with information about the service.

The registered manager had detailed knowledge of people’s abilities and needs and they were committed to ensuring people received the care and support they needed. People felt able to talk to the registered manager and they were assured that any appropriate action to anything they raised would be taken.

4 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with one person from the service whilst they were carrying out an arts and crafts activity. They told us they were happy living at the service and enjoyed looking after the rabbits and guinea pigs. They also told us that staff supported them with cooking meals. We observed another person whilst attending their horticulture group and noted that they appeared confident and comfortable with staff. Due to people's limited and specialised communication, we were unable to speak with them about the service in detail.

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.

11 October 2012

During a routine inspection

I have been with the college for many years, and living in this house for 4 years. I have had some difficult times but feel that the staff have understood this very well. I have always felt supported and I am now working with staff to try and find a good supported living flat in this area. I wouldn't want to live too far away as this is were all my friends are based.

I keep myself very busy by working in a charity shop a few sessions a week.

A number of residents work in the Homefield shop which is called 'Barrow treats' (Barrow treats is a cafe and also sells sweets)

I work at another Homefield place which is in Loughborough. It is called 'Sip and Surf'. This is an internet cafe where customers can use the computers and also have a drink if they want to. We run an Ebay club where members of the public will bring in items. We then try and sell it for them on Ebay for a small fee

At 'Barrow Treats' when we take the orders we use IPADS to show the customers pictures of the available items and the price.

30 September 2011

During a routine inspection

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

People commented, 'I have my tutorial on Saturday, and our residents meeting on Sunday evenings. I like that because we usually just relax and watch tv anyway.' Another added 'I can go out and return when I want and I have my mobile with me in case I have a problem' and 'the staff are brilliant with us, any problems you can go to them.'

We observed that staff speak with people in a friendly and respectful manner. We also spoke with staff who were aware of peoples' care plans and risk assessments and the level of support each individual needed.

People told us they felt happy and secure, and if they had a problem they would speak to staff about it.

The people that were spoken with are happy with their home, though one person indicated 'I had my bedroom swapped round, 'cause it wasn't homely.'

Of those spoken with none could remember being involved with or included in a questionnaire or quality assurance exercise.

We spoke to staff who confirmed that the recruitment process included checks to enable them to work 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.

We spoke with the staff group and found they were aware of how to safeguard people and how to recognise different forms of abuse.