You are here

Options The Old Vicarage Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 August 2018

The inspection took place on 11 July 2018 and was unannounced. The last comprehensive inspection of this service took place on 4 July 2017 when we identified two breaches of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. On 4 October 2017, we carried out a focused inspection to check if the provider had made the necessary improvements and found that they had met the requirements.

Options the Old Vicarage is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Options the Old Vicarage provides accommodation and personal care for up to eight people who have a range of needs including autism, mental health needs and/or learning disabilities. There were seven people using the service at the time of this inspection. The provider had a range of registered care services including several adult social care services across the country.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Staff were passionate about supporting people to achieve their full potential. They invested time to developing ways to work with individuals to help them improve their quality of life. Their dedication resulted in people making improvements including some leaving the service to become independent.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Checks were carried out during the recruitment process to ensure only suitable staff were employed.

There were arrangements in place for the safe management of people’s medicines and regular checks were undertaken to ensure this remained safe.

The premises were clean and the provider had effective systems to protect people by the prevention and control of infection.

The provider was aware of their responsibilities and had acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

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.

People’s nutritional and healthcare needs had been assessed and were met.

People were supported by staff who were suitably trained, supervised and appraised.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. Care plans addressed each person’s individual needs, including what was important to them, and how they wanted to be supported.

People were involved in undertaking activities of their choice. People were cared for in a way that took account of their diversity, values and human rights.

People who used the service were young and although their own end of life wishes were not discussed, staff supported them to understand and deal with bereavement.

People living at the service and their relatives told us that the management team was approachable and supportive. People and their relatives were supported to raise concerns and make suggestions about where improvements could be made.

The provider had effective systems in place

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 August 2018

The service was safe.

There were risk assessments in place and detailed guidelines for staff to help ensure people were protected from the risk of harm.

There were processes and training in place for the safe administration of medicines.

The provider had systems in place for the recording and investigation of incidents and accidents and lessons were learned when things went wrong.

There were systems designed to protect people by the prevention and control of infection.

The provider had a robust recruitment process in place and there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet the needs of people using the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had received the necessary training, supervision and appraisal they required to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard.

Staff understood the importance of supporting people to make choices and to act in their best interests.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts and were assisted by staff to access healthcare services when needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 August 2018

The service was caring.

Staff understood people’s care and support needs and people were complimentary about the staff team.

Care and support was delivered by staff in ways that respected people’s privacy and dignity. People were supported to maintain their independence and encouraged to achieve their goals.

Daily records were written in an informative, person centred and professional way.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 August 2018

The service was responsive.

Staff were passionate about supporting people to achieve their full potential. They invested time to develop ways to work with individuals to help them improve their quality of life. Their dedication resulted in people making improvements including some leaving the service to become independent.

The registered manager and staff were passionate about providing a person-centred service to people to enable them to live meaningful lives.

There was an open and positive culture which focussed on people and this was strongly embedded in all the activities carried out by the service.

People were involved in how they wanted to be supported and the staff ensured they received care and support in ways they preferred.

People were confident their concerns would be listened to and acted on.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 August 2018

The service was well led.

There were quality checks and audits and these were effective in identifying issues and resolving these. However, actions taken to make improvements were not always recorded.

The registered manager was hands on and visible and worked alongside the staff team to meet people’s needs and staff felt supported.

There were regular staff meetings which promoted discussions and the sharing of information.