• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Zion House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Higher Trevellas, St Agnes, Cornwall, TR5 0XS (01872) 552650

Provided and run by:
Mr & Mrs M Stevens

All Inspections

11 July 2017

During a routine inspection

We inspected Zion House on 11 July 2017. This was an announced inspection. We told the provider 24 hours before our inspection visit that we would be coming. This was because we wanted to make sure people would be at home to speak with us.

The service was last inspected in July 2015. During that inspection visit we found the service was meeting the regulations.

Zion House provides care and accommodation for up to eight people who have a learning disability. When we visited the service seven people were living there.

The service is situated in a rural position but with transport available to attend community facilities and events. People at the service live together in a purpose built extension to the main house. It is divided into three separate units but all interconnecting. This gives people the opportunity to live communally but have their own space available to them.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. The staff at the service took time to speak with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking with staff on duty. Comments included; “I love it here. It’s my home” and “I like all the staff here; they’re all lovely and they look after me.”

Staff were competent in how they were providing support to people. They were very familiar with what support and care people needed. Staff supported people to make meaningful decisions about their lives and respected people’s decisions and wishes. People were supported to lead full and varied lives and staff supported them to engage in a wide variety of activities. Relatives told us, “[Relative] is very happy there and they do their best to make her happy. I would give it five stars if it was a hotel. I wouldn’t want [person’s name] to live anywhere else.”

The service was not fully meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards regarding making applications to the supervisory body for the use of certain restrictions in place for people. Following discussions with the provider immediate action was taken to rectify this. We have made a recommendation in the report regarding this.

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 support this practice.

People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks, which they told us they enjoyed. People had been included in planning menus and their feedback about the meals in the home had been listened to and acted on. One person told us they enjoyed being involved in meal preparation and chose what they fancied each week for their meals. People dined together in each shared unit. It made dining a social experience by eating together and sharing conversation between themselves and staff. Comments included; “I have what I want. Tonight I’m having a baked potato and a chicken bake.”

Some people told us they were involved in their care planning and reviews. Relatives told us they were also involved in the care planning and review process. People had individual support plans, detailing the support they needed and how they wanted this to be provided. A professional who was familiar and had worked with the service told us, “In my experience the service are very supportive to the individual person’s needs. The work and engage very well with other professionals to offer flexibility in meeting people’s needs as they change over time.”

Zion House was well-led and people’s relatives told us they were kept informed about any changes in the service. They told us they felt their comments were listened to and acted upon. The service had an open and positive culture with a clear focus on enabling and supporting people to become more independent.

To Be Confirmed

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We inspected Zion House on 21 and 29 July 2015. This was an announced inspection. We told the provider two days before our inspection visit that we would be coming. This was because we wanted to make sure people would be at home to speak with us. The service was last inspected in July 2014. During that inspection visit we found the service was not identifying and updating training for staff. The registered provider sent us an action plan stating what action it was taking to improve how it identified and updated staff training. We found that improvements had been made and therefore the provider had met the relevant legal requirements in this area.

Zion House provides care and accommodation for up to eight people who have a learning disability. When we initially visited the service four people were on holiday therefore we made a second visit on their return to observe how people were being supported and to speak with people using the service. Eight people were living at the service during this inspection visit.

The service is situated in a rural position but with transport available to attend community facilities and events. People at the service live together in a purpose built extension to the main house. It is divided into three separate units but all interconnecting. This gives people the opportunity to live communally but have their own space available to them.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

During the previous inspection we found staff were not having their training needs identified and some training was out of date. The registered provider had taken steps to put in place a training package which meets the requirements of the new Care Certificate framework. This system replaced the Common Induction Standards with effect from 1 April 2015. Staff told us, “There is a new training system just starting. The manager has talked to us all about it and I am looking forward to getting started”. Another member of staff said, “I am up to date with most things but the new training programme looks like it will be more interesting”.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. The staff at the service took time to speak with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking with staff on duty. Comments included; “It’s great living here. (Staff) are very kind with me”. Also, “I love living here, I get everything I need and feel safe”.

Staff were competent in how they were providing support to people. They were very familiar with what support and care people needed. Staff supported people to make meaningful decisions about their lives and respected people’s decisions and wishes. People were supported to lead full and varied lives and staff supported them to engage in a wide variety of activities. Relatives told us, “They are always doing something. There is never a dull moment”. Also, “All the staff go over and above. My mind is at rest and I feel that my (relative) is safe and well cared for”.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks, which they told us they enjoyed. People had been included in planning menus and their feedback about the meals in the home had been listened to and acted on. We saw one person actively involved in meal preparation. People dined together in each shared unit. It made dining a social experience by eating together and sharing conversation between themselves and staff. Comments included; “Custards my favourite and we get what we like”. Also, “I like helping to get things ready they (staff) show us what we need to do”.

Some people told us they were involved in their care planning and reviews. Relatives told us they were also involved in the care planning and review process. People had individual support plans, detailing the support they needed and how they wanted this to be provided. A care coordinator told us, “This is a good service which makes sure people are involved in their own care planning and reviews”.

Zion House was well-led and people’s relatives told us they were kept informed about any changes in the service. They told us they felt their comments were listened to and acted upon. The service had an open and positive culture with a clear focus on enabling and supporting people to become more independent.

10 July 2014

During a routine inspection

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 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

This was an announced inspection. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. This was because we wanted to make sure people would be at home to speak with us.

Zion House provides accommodation and personal care for up to eight people with a learning disability. There were eight people living at the home on the day of the inspection visit. The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. We saw people were happy living at Zion House. The atmosphere was friendly and relaxed and we observed staff and people who used the service enjoying each other’s company. Staff knew the people they supported well.

Two members of staff had been working at the service for a year but had not undertaken an induction or completed all of the mandatory training. This meant people could not be assured they were supported by staff with the appropriate skills or knowledge. Safeguarding training for the staff team had not been updated since 2010 which meant staff may not have been aware of recent legislation or working practices. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Individual care plans were up to date and contained relevant and personalised information to guide staff when supporting people. Risk assessments were appropriate and informative. This meant staff had the information they needed to support people well and in the way they wanted .

We saw people led busy lives and were encouraged to take part in activities both in and outside of the home. People were supported to use public transport to access the local community which helped them retain and develop their independence.

The service had a positive and family orientated culture. The views of people living at Zion House and those of the staff team were actively sought out by the registered manager. Quality assurance systems had failed to identify the gaps in staff training. 

30 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We carried out an unannounced visit to Zion House to look at the care and welfare of people who used the service.

We met with and spoke with seven people who received a service. Everybody was very happy to talk with us and three people invited us to look at their rooms. One person said to us "I have lived here for many years and I am very happy here", another person said "I enjoy visiting my mother and family but I always want to get back home".

We spoke with the manager, two members of staff and telephoned two members of staff to gain their views about the service and the support they received from the manager. The staff were very complimentary about the manager and one said "the support is fantastic". Another member of staff said "we support people to be as independent as possible and offer choices in everything they do". We observed the varied choices offered when we arrived at breakfast time.

We spoke with one parent over the telephone who said "the home is very good" and "they do all they can for us".

We met with a visiting professional and invited them to make a comment about the service. They replied "I have visited many services and this one is one of the best".

Care records and discussion with staff confirmed people's care needs were being well met. Records were legible, up to date and stored securely and made available for the visit.

27 December 2012

During a routine inspection

Zion house is a residential home which primarily caters for people with dementia and learning disabilities. The home is registered for eight people. All bed-rooms are ground-floor with four en-suite bathrooms and two communal bathrooms. The age range of people living at the home is from 31 to 65 years. One family member of a person living at Zion House told us, 'I think it is excellent. They are lovely. They treat people with respect . (My relative) loves it there'.

During the inspection we spoke with the Registered Manager as well as a number of people who lived at Zion House.

We saw that people were happy and well cared for. We reviewed people's care plans and saw that people were provided with choices to enable them to be as independent as possible.

People's care plans were regularly reviewed. These plans directed, informed and guided care staff about the best way to help care for people.

People who use the service were supported to have adequate nutrition and hydration to meet their individual dietary needs.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People were cared for by staff that were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.