You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 March 2019

About the service:

¿ Treehaven Bungalows provides accommodation with personal care for up to eleven people living with autistic spectrum disorders and/or learning disabilities. The premises consists of two bungalows and each provides four ground floor bedrooms and a self contained flat.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿ Areas of the service looked tired and some furnishings and fittings were damaged and in need of redecoration or repair. For example, carpets on the stairs were coming away from the steps and the veneer on some kitchen cupboards was peeling off. There was no dedicated maintenance person, since the last one left and maintenance has been carried out by an external contractor. This meant that small jobs were either not completed or there were long delays in responding to needs.

¿ The registered manager told us that the redecoration and replacement of furnishings was included in the providers annual development plan. However, although this included plans to create a sensory room, renovation of the previous horticulture area and a new laundry area to be developed, there was no plans recorded to re-decorate and refurbish the service. Following the inspection we were sent a maintenance list that showed areas that needed to be addressed and we saw that some improvements had been completed.

¿ The registered manager told us they had secured a regular company to provide the maintenance of the service and we saw that some redecoration had taken place. We were told this would extend to the whole service.

¿ People continued to feel safe living at the service. Risks to people’s health, safety and welfare had been identified and were known by staff. Risk assessments relating to the environment were in place to keep people safe. Staffing levels were appropriate to meet the needs of the people using the service. People told us they thought the home was well-staffed. Medicines were safely managed. The home was clean and hygienic, although some areas were difficult to keep clean because they were damaged, for example, holes in the flooring of the kitchen. There were systems in place to monitor incidents and accidents and learn from these.

¿ People’s care, health and cultural needs were identified so staff could meet these. The staff were skilled and competent and knew the people they supported well. People said they liked the food served and had a choice of different dishes. People were supported to maintain good health and referred to health professionals when required. Staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and ensured people consented to their care.

¿ People continued to receive care from staff who were kind and caring. People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided and their privacy and dignity were protected and promoted. People had developed positive relationships with staff who had a good understanding of their needs and preferences.

¿ People received person centred care that met their needs. Care plans were written from the perspective of the person using the service and set out how staff should meet their needs. The staff team were knowledgeable about people’s needs. Managers and staff ensured information was provided to people in an accessible format. People took part in a range of group and one-to-one activities depending on their preferences. People said they knew how to make a complaint if needed.

¿ People, relatives and staff told us the service as well managed and had an open and friendly culture. Staff said the service had a family atmosphere and they felt well-supported. The providers audit system covered all aspects of the service and helped to ensure the care people received was safe and the environment fit for purpose and well-maintained. Managers and staff worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure people got the care and support they needed.

More information is in Detailed Findings below:

Rating at last inspe

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 March 2019

The service was safe

Details are in our Safe findings below.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 23 March 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our Effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 March 2019

The service was caring

Details are in our Caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 March 2019

The service was responsive

Details are in our Responsive findings below.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 March 2019

The service was well-led

Details are in our Well-led findings below.