Long Lane Farm

People’s experience of using this service:

Systems were in place that confirmed any allegations of abuse were dealt with. Relevant risk assessments had been completed. The environment was monitored and safe for people to live in. Medicines were managed safely

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.

Relevant mental capacity assessments had been completed. A variety of meals were provided to people and we saw people taking part in meal preparation. Assessments were seen that demonstrated the relevant health professionals were involved in the care provided to people.

Care provided to people respected their privacy, dignity and promoted their independence. It was clear from our observations that staff knew people’s needs well. Kind interactions were observed taking place.

Care plans had been completed and were regularly reviewed. These contained relevant information about how to meet people’s needs. Plans were in place to ensure people’s end of life wishes were taken into account and respected. A varied individualised activity programme was in place that ensured people lived a fulfilled life of their choosing.

Feedback about the service was consistently good. The registered manager understood the operation and management of the service. A variety of audits were in place that demonstrated the service was monitored and safe for people to live in.

Rating at last inspection: We undertook the last inspection on 21 and 22 June 2016 where it was rated as good in all key questions and good overall. The inspection report was published on 19 July 2018.

Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection based on the previous ratings.

Follow up: We will reinspect the service as per our inspection programme. We will continue to monitor any information we receive about the service. We may bring the inspection forward if we received concerning information.

Long Lane Farm provides accommodation and personal care for up to four adults with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were four people living at the service.

Bedrooms and facilities at the home are located over two floors. All bedrooms are single occupancy. There is a kitchen dining room, a lounge, a bathroom and appropriate toilet facilities. One person is accommodated in an annex, which is attached to the home but has a separate bedroom, lounge and bathroom. There is a garden to the rear of the property.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager at the service who had been in post since 2010. 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.

At our last inspection on 21 May 2014, the provider was compliant will all of the standards that were reviewed at the time.

Relatives told us they felt people living at the service received safe care. The staff we spoke with had a good understanding of how to safeguard vulnerable adults from abuse and what action to take if they suspected abuse was taking place.

We saw evidence that staff had been recruited safely. Relatives and staff were happy with the staffing levels at the service. We found that there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff felt well supported. They received an appropriate induction, regular supervision and effective training.

There were appropriate policies and procedures in place for managing medicines and relatives were happy with the way people’s medicines were managed. People were supported with their healthcare needs and were referred appropriately to a variety of healthcare services. Local healthcare professionals told us that staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and records were well kept.

The relatives we spoke with were happy with the care provided to people living at the home. One relative told us, “We’re happy with the care. The staff are well trained”.

We observed that people’s needs were responded to in a timely manner and saw evidence that their needs were reviewed regularly. We saw staff treating people with patience, kindness and affection. The people living at the service told us they liked the staff there. Relatives told us the staff who supported their family members were caring.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The service had taken appropriate action where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care. Relatives told us they were involved in decisions about their family member’s care. They felt that staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged them to be independent.

Relatives were happy with the food provided at the home and we observed people being supported appropriately with their meals. Risks relating to people’s nutrition and hydration were assessed and managed appropriately.

People took part in a variety of activities within the home and staff supported people to participate in a variety of community activities regularly.

Relatives and staff felt the service was managed well and they felt able to raise any concerns. We observed staff and the registered manager communicating with people and each other in a polite, respectful and friendly manner.

The service had a statement of purpose which focused on providing people with person-centred care which reflected their needs and abilities. We saw evidence that this approach was promoted by the registered manager and staff.

The registered manager completed a variety of audits which were effective in ensuring that appropriate levels of care and safety were achieved and maintained at the home.

Below is a summary of what we found.

There were three people resident at the home when we carried out this inspection. Two people living at the home had significant communication difficulties and were unable to provide feedback about the support they received. We contacted relatives who were closely involved in their care arrangements and were able to tell us their views of the care provided at Long Lane Farm.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Risk management plans were in place and these provided staff with clear guidance to follow to minimise identified risks.

Staff training, written guidance and appropriate working practices helped to keep people safe and protected against any potential abuse.

The staff training programme helped to ensure staff were working in ways which supported the health and safety of those living at the home.

The relatives we spoke with expressed confidence in the staff team.

Is the service effective?

Staff knew people well and were able to provide care and support in the way individuals preferred. Detailed communication profiles had been developed to assist staff in understanding how people expressed their feelings and the support required to make choices about their day to day lives.

Support planning and assessment information included people's likes and dislikes regarding meals and any help they needed. Each person living at the home had particular needs and issues relating to the food they ate and the importance of meals in their daily routines. There was clear guidance for staff to follow regarding how best to support people with their nutritional needs. Independence was promoted. People were supported to join in with preparing meals and snacks, according to their wishes and abilities.

The training programme equipped staff for their work role and helped promote good standards of care. Staff spoke positively about the training provided. Comments included; 'If any new legislation or directive comes in, you have to do the training.' And 'I have worked here for a long time and am experienced but still have refresher training to keep me updated.'

Is the service caring?

We observed staff interacting with people in a kind and friendly manner. We saw that staff were considerate, respectful of people's wishes, and delivered care and support in a way that maintained people's dignity. Relationships between staff and residents appeared warm and friendly.

People's preferences and needs were recorded and their care was provided in line with their wishes.

The staff we spoke with showed a good understanding of the needs of the people they were supporting. Staff showed an understanding of what people wanted when they had difficulty in expressing themselves.

Relatives told us they had confidence in the staff team. Comments included; 'they have a pool of experienced staff, some very good people.' And '(name of person) is very close to the staff. They know him well.'

Is the service responsive?

Support plans were person centred and gave staff clear guidance to follow regarding how they were to meet people's needs.

Risks were identified and plans were put in place to minimise these risks. Staff received specific training to help them to respond appropriately to some areas of need. This included how best to support an individual with epilepsy who required specific input at certain times.

Changes, such as ill health were responded to swiftly and records showed good contact was maintained with health care professionals.

Is the service well led?

Staff and relatives told us there was an open culture with opportunities for them to share their views and make suggestions. Staff spoke favourably about the support they received. Comments included, 'You can raise anything at any time. You don't have to wait for a meeting.' And 'There is always someone to go to for advice. You can ask anything.'

The quality assessment and monitoring systems promoted the effective management of risks relating to health, welfare and safety of those living at the home.

People's needs were assessed holistically so support plans could be devised in a person centred way. The written plans of support we reviewed demonstrated each person's individual circumstances, likes and dislikes had been considered. This helped to ensure people received personalised support that met their needs and protected their rights.

The provider had taken steps to ensure the premises were adequately maintained and safe for people who used the service, staff and visitors. The registered manager had taken the lead on infection control and staff had undergone training to ensure they were aware of their responsibilities in keeping the home clean and hygienic, which helped to reduce the risk of infection.

The provider had implemented comprehensive policies and procedures regarding staff and recruitment. Checks were made on prospective staff to ensure they were fit for the role. This helped to ensure only suitable candidates were employed.

Regular provider audits, reviews of documentation, staff meetings and contact with families helped the provider to monitor the quality of the service that was delivered to people.