You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 22 March 2019

About the service:

¿ Treehaven Rants provides accommodation with personal care for up to 12 people living with autistic spectrum disorders and/or learning disabilities. The premises consisted of two bungalows that 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, flooring in the kitchen area had holes in it. 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 provider’s annual development plan. However, although the annual development plan contained some details about improvement work, it did not contain details of the plans 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 work had commenced. For example, the gardens were being maintained on the day of our visit and improvements had been made to the driveway.

¿ 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. Staffing levels were appropriate to meet the needs of the people using the service. Medicines were safely managed. The service was clean and hygienic, although some areas were difficult to keep clean because they were damaged. 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 meals. 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 person centred 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 was well managed and had an open and friendly culture. Staff said they felt well supported and the management team were open and approachable. The provider’s audit system covered all aspects of the service and helped to ensure the care people received was appropriate and safe. 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 inspection: Good (report published 15 June 2016)

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the effective domain had changed to requires improvement. The overall rating for this service re

Inspection areas



Updated 22 March 2019

The service was safe

Details are in our Safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 22 March 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our Effective findings below.



Updated 22 March 2019

The service was caring

Details are in our Caring findings below.



Updated 22 March 2019

The service was responsive

Details are in our Responsive findings below.



Updated 22 March 2019

The service was well-led

Details are in our Well-led findings below.