You are here

Archived: The Old Farmhouse / The Briars Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 August 2016

This inspection took place on 22 July 2016 and was announced. We gave 24 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure it was safe for us to visit while the final redevelopment building work was being completed. It also ensured the service’s registered manager would be available to meet us.

At the last inspection on 13 March 2015 we found the service was not consistently safe, effective, or well led. Improvements were required in each of these areas. The shortcomings were primarily due to delays in starting the planned major site redevelopment work. At this inspection, the required actions had been taken to address our previous concerns. The redevelopment work was virtually complete and new systems had been introduced to ensure people received their medicines safely.

Relatives said the recent accommodation moves had gone better than they had anticipated. One person’s relative said “They built up their confidence and anticipate things before they happen. They don’t just chuck them in at the deep end”. Another relative said “I’m very happy where [person’s name] is. They’ve improved a lot since moving into their new place”.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and support for up to eight adults with a learning disability or autistic spectrum condition. The redevelopment of the site has reduced the capacity to a maximum of six people, accommodated in five self-contained flats (with two people sharing one of the large flats). On completion of the redevelopment the provider will apply to change their registration accordingly.

People who lived at the location needed one to one staff support at all times. Three of the people with more complex needs also required two to one staff support when going out into the local community. At the time of the inspection there were six people living at the location with complex support and communication needs. People had very limited or no verbal communication skills and required staff support with all of their personal care needs and to go out into the community.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

The registered manager told us the service philosophy was “To support each person to meet their individual needs and enable them to lead as full a life as possible”. Staff received training tailored to the personal needs of the people living at the location to ensure they were able to deliver the philosophy of care. This was further reinforced through staff meetings, shift handovers and one to one staff supervision sessions. There were sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.

All of the interactions we observed between staff and people were caring and supportive. It was clear the registered manager and the staff had people’s best interests in mind and tried to provide as good a lifestyle as possible for them. Relatives told us the staff and management were open and accessible and had a good understanding of people’s complex needs and behaviours. Relatives were always made welcome and were encouraged to visit as often as they wished. One relative said “Staff are really brilliant. I can’t fault them”. Another relative said “Staff come across as very professional and very caring, they have the balance just right”.

People had choice and control over their daily lives to the extent they were able to express their preferences. People were supported by their key workers to express their feelings and preferences. Staff respected and acted on the choices people made. The service knew how to protect people’s rights when they lacked the mental capacity to make certain decisions about their care and welfare. People also had acces

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 August 2016

The service was safe.

There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to help keep people safe and meet their complex needs.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

Risks were identified and managed in ways that enabled people to lead fulfilling lives and to remain safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 August 2016

The service was effective.

People received care and support from staff who were trained to meet their individual needs.

People were supported to maintain good health and to access specialist health care services when needed.

The service acted in line with current legislation and guidance where people lacked the mental capacity to consent to aspects of their care.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 August 2016

The service was caring.

People were supported in their own individualised flats by very caring and considerate staff.

Staff were trained in a range of communication methods to help them understand each person�s individual needs and choices.

People were treated with dignity and respect and were supported to be as independent as they were able to be.

People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 August 2016

The service was responsive.

People�s individual needs and preferences were known and acted on.

People were supported to be involved in the assessment and planning of their care to the extent they were able to do so.

People, relatives, staff and other professionals were encouraged to express their views and these were taken into account to improve the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 August 2016

The service was well led.

People were supported by a motivated team of management and staff. The service had an open and caring culture focused on promoting a good quality of life for the people they supported.

The service worked in partnership with local health and social care professionals and promoted people�s involvement in the community.

Quality assurance systems were in place to maintain and improve the quality and safety of the service.