We carried out a review of the data available to us about Mrs P M Eales t/a Just Homes - 3 New Hill on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Mrs P M Eales t/a Just Homes - 3 New Hill, you can give feedback on this service.
Mrs P M Eales t/a Just Homes - 3 New Hill is an adapted residential building which delivers personal care and support for up to three people who have learning disabilities and associated needs. At the time of inspection, the service was supporting three people. For ease of reference this service will be referred to as New Hill throughout this report.
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’s experience of using this service and what we found
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.
People were safe at the service. Staff had received required training and understood their responsibilities to safeguard people from discrimination, harm and abuse. Risks to people had been identified, assessed and measures had been put in place to ensure these were reduced and managed safely. People were supported by enough suitable staff who knew them well and how to meet their needs. People received their prescribed medicines safely, from staff who had completed the required training and had their competency to do so regularly assessed. People lived in a home which was clean, hygienic and well maintained.
People's needs were met effectively by staff who had the necessary skills and knowledge. The registered manager effectively operated a system of training, supervision, appraisal and competency assessments, which enabled staff to provide good quality care. Staff promoted people's health by supporting people to access health care services when required and by encouraging people to eat a healthy diet.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff effectively involved people and their relatives where appropriate, in decisions about their care, so that their human and legal rights were upheld.
Staff treated people with kindness and respect. People were supported to express their views about their care and their wishes were respected. People's privacy and dignity were respected and promoted during the delivery of their care.
People consistently experienced person-centred care, which had significantly reduced the level of behaviours that may challenge others, the frequency of self-injurious behaviour and the level of prescribed medicines administered to manage people's anxieties. People were at the heart of the service. Staff felt valued and respected by the management team who had created a true sense of family within the service. Staff were passionate and continuously strove to achieve good, positive outcomes for people.People and their relatives knew how to complain and were confident the management team would listen and take appropriate action if they raised concerns. At the time of inspection the service was not supporting anyone with end of life care.
The registered manager effectively operated quality assurance and governance systems to drive continuous improvement in the service. The management team effectively collaborated with key organisations to ensure the safe and effective delivery of people’s care.
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 (report published 3 April 2017). At this inspection the rating remained Good.
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.
3 New Hill is a care home which is registered to provide care (without nursing) for up to three people with a learning disability. The home is a bungalow style building situated in the village of Purley in Berkshire. It is situated near to local amenities and public transport. At the time of the inspection there were two people living in the care home. Both people needed care and support from staff at all times.
The home is required to have 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. The manager had applied to register and was some way through the process.
The recruitment and selection process ensured people were supported by staff of good character. There was a sufficient amount of experienced and trained staff to meet people’s needs safely. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns they had about the care and welfare of people to protect them from abuse.
People were provided with effective care from a dedicated staff team who had received support through supervision, staff meetings and training. Their care plans detailed how they wanted their needs to be met. Risk assessments identified risks associated with personal and specific behavioural and/or health related issues. They helped to promote people’s independence whilst minimising the risks. Staff treated people with kindness and respect and had regular contact with people’s families to make sure they were fully informed about the care and support their relative received.
The service had taken the necessary action to ensure they were working in a way which recognised and maintained people’s rights. They understood the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and consent issues which related to the people in their care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff were supported to receive the training and development they needed to care for and support people’s individual needs. People received good quality care. The provider had a system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. This was generally undertaken by other care home managers within the group using internal audits, through care reviews and by requesting feedback from people and their representatives.
This inspection took place on the 26 and 28 November 2014 and was unannounced.
Mrs P M Eales t/a Just Homes - 3 New Hill is a care home and is registered to provide care (without nursing) for up to three people. The home is a detached bungalow within a residential area on the outskirts of Reading. People have their own bedrooms and use of communal areas that includes an enclosed private garden. People living in the home needed support from staff at all times and had a range of support needs. People were unable to communicate verbally or use sign language.
There is a full time 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.’
There was a long standing staff team who had received the support and training they needed to protect people and keep them safe. The numbers of staff working throughout various times of the day and night were determined from people’s assessed and changing needs. Staff responded appropriately when people presented with challenging behaviours, which protected the person and others. Staff had received training to administer people’s medication safely.
People were provided with effective care and support from a team of staff who had received the support they needed to meet their learning and development goals. Further training that staff had not received such as autism awareness had been scheduled for staff which would help them support people’s individualised care.
People were unable to communicate verbally or use sign language. However staff understood their needs and were able to communicate with them effectively from body language. Staff encouraged people to express themselves and make decisions about their lives.
People using the service at the time of our visit did not have the capacity to make particular decisions. The manager had submitted Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications to the local authority to provide protection for the people. The MCA provides the legal framework for acting and making decisions on behalf of individuals who lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions for themselves. The DoLS provide legal protection for vulnerable people who are, or may become, deprived of their liberty.
People were supported to maintain a balanced nutritional diet to suit their individual needs and taste. This was supported by external health care professionals and continual assessment. People had health care action plans and staff supported them to access external health care appointments. Some people needed specialist equipment, which staff were trained to use such as hoists to ensure the safety and comfort of the person when being repositioned.
People’s families acted on their behalf and were fully involved in the planning and reviewing of their relatives care and support needs. Staff were kind and considerate towards people and they helped them to participate in individualised and or group activities of their choosing either within the home or community.
Staff treated people with kindness and respect. The service had regular contact with people’s relatives who told us staff were approachable and that they felt listened to and were always kept fully informed. They were encouraged to be involved in the decisions about the person’s care and support needs.
Health and safety checks were completed. However, there were no formal processes to monitor the services provided. We have made a recommendation that the service considers guidance and training to develop the auditing skills of the management team.
People were spoken to with respect, given choices and encouraged to make decisions. One person we spoke with said 'I love it here, I love the staff.'
People were offered and supported to enjoy, suitable and nutritious food and drink.
Staff received appropriate professional development. Staff we spoke with said the training was 'very good.' They also said there was an open door policy and they felt supported by management.
There was a system in place to regularly monitor and assess the quality of the service that people received.
Medications were administered safely and relatives of people living in the home told us that they saw staff checking medications before they were given.
Most staff in the home had worked there for many years. They told us about how they were recruited and their induction process. Relatives we spoke with told us that staff seemed well trained and that people felt safe in the home.
The home had an appropriate complaints procedure. The process was available in different formats so people living in the home knew how to make a complaint.
There were accurate and up to date records kept. People's care plans were updated daily and reviewed within the documented timescales. Other records in the home were also kept to ensure the quality of service remained consistent.