We carried out a review of the data available to us about Paradise House Painswick 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 Paradise House Painswick, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
People were supported to understand how to keep safe during the pandemic. Easy read information and social stories had been created to improve people’s understanding of the pandemic and what this meant for them.
People were empowered to share their experience of living in a care setting throughout a pandemic. The provider had supported people to write a letter to the prime minister which described how they were managing to stay positive throughout the pandemic. The registered manager had also liaised with a local MP to describe people’s feedback so that it could be shared amongst parliament.
People’s well being had been considered throughout the pandemic. Staff had considered what was important to people and what people felt was missing throughout lockdown periods. Staff had set up a projector and organised cinema nights and had created a ‘tuck shop’ to support people who said they missed going out to the shop.
People’s experience of using this service:
The service was developed and designed before the guidance Registering the Right Support was produced. Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance ensures that people who use services 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 choice, control and independence. We found Paradise House worked to make sure it was run in line with the values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.
People were supported by staff who had been recruited safely and had the skills needed to provide effective care. Staff received support from the organisation and enjoyed working at the service.
People’s risks had been identified and appropriate safety measures were in place. People had detailed care plans which provided up to date guidance for staff to follow to provide person-centred support.
People received their medicines as prescribed and medicines were managed safely. People could see healthcare professionals when needed and supported to live healthy lives.
People were able to attend many various activities. People were supported to access their local community to follow their interests. People’s independence was promoted by positive risk-taking approaches. This meant people could maintain life skills and enjoy a community presence. People were being supported by exceptionally kind and caring staff.
People, relatives and staff told us the service was well-led. The registered manager was a visible presence and knew people and their relatives well. People’s feedback was encouraged and used to shape the service.
The service met the characteristics of Good overall; more information is available in the full report below.
Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection in October 2016 we rated the service as Good overall.
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the date and rating of the previous inspection.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
This was an unannounced inspection completed on 20 and 21 October 2016. The inspection was completed by one adult social care inspector.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The service was safe. Risk assessments were implemented and reflected the current level of risk to people. There were sufficient staffing levels to ensure safe care and treatment. The premises were well maintained.
People were receiving effective care and support. Staff received training which was relevant to their role. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals. The service was adhering to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and where required the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Staff told us there was an open culture and the environment was an enjoyable place to work. Staff were extremely passionate about their job roles and felt integral to the process of providing effective care to people. Family members said the management team were approachable.
The service was caring. We observed staff supporting people in a caring and patient way. Staff knew the people they supported well and were able to describe what they liked to do and how they wanted to be supported. People were supported sensitively with an emphasis on promoting their rights to privacy, dignity, choice and independence. People were supported to undertake meaningful activities, which reflected their interests.
The service was responsive to people’s needs. Care plans were person centred to provide consistent, high quality care and support. Daily records were detailed and contained sufficient information for staff to read and support people effectively. People were encouraged to have a say about things that mattered to them and to raise any concerns they may have.
The service was well led. Quality assurance checks and audits were occurring regularly and identified actions to improve the service. Staff, relatives and other professionals spoke positively about the registered manager. The provider continually looked to make things better so that people benefitted from an improved service. Any planned improvement actions were followed up to ensure they were implemented.
We met and talked with people from the different houses and asked them about their experiences. One person told us 'I like it here it's good'. Another person told us 'I'm being looked after the staff are helpful'. Parents wrote positive comments to the management and staff team of Paradise House. One parent commented 'thank you for such a special barbeque day at Paradise'.
We saw the menus for all four houses and people told us that the food was good. We met and spoke with the cook in Oak and Pine house, who shared with us the winter menu.
The Health & Safety Officer and Care Supervisor showed us around all four properties and four people showed us their rooms. We found the properties to be in safe, clean and tidy conditions. The rooms were personalised and where relevant there were sensory door attachments for those people with epilepsy.
We spoke with and saw the staff training programme. We found it to be on-going, with regular appraisals and supervision meetings. Staff told us they felt supported and there were opportunities for staff and training and development.
People were protected from the risk of abuse because appropriate procedures were in
place and staff had received training in this area.
We spoke with nine members of staff during our visit. Staff were very motivated and caring and attentive of the residents. One member of staff told us 'we can discuss things with the manager to improve the services we provide.'
We spoke with a relative who told us 'I think the services provided here are brilliant ! It took us about four years to find this home'. They also told us that 'we live a long way away but there's nothing equivalent to this standard of care near to where we live.'
We saw that appropriate recruitment checks had been undertaken before staff began working at Paradise House.
The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. The provider had a sound knowledge of the people they were providing a service for and systems were in place to ensure standards were maintained.