You are here

HF Trust - Lympne Place (High Trees and The Beeches) Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 January 2018

This inspection took place on 30 November 2017 and was unannounced.

High Trees and The Beeches are two residential care homes. The services are registered as one location to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 12 people who have a learning disability and other complex needs. 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. 12 people were living at the service at the time of the inspection and each had their own personalised bedroom. In both High Trees and The Beeches, people had access to a lounge, dining room, a kitchen, bathrooms and gardens.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who is 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.

We last inspected HF Trust – Lympne Place (High Trees and The Beeches) in August 2016 when two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 were identified. We issued requirement notices relating to safe care and treatment, good governance and a lack of notifications.

At our inspection in August 2016, the service was rated 'Requires Improvement'. We asked the provider to take action and the provider sent us an action plan. The provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches. We undertook this inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. Improvements had been made. We made two recommendations to improve people’s care and support, however, all of the breaches had now been met.

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. However, best interest decisions regarding people’s finances had not been recorded. We made a recommendation about this. There was some confusion amongst staff regarding the provider’s policy on supporting people to eat out. Staff had an understanding of The Mental Capacity Act (2005) and any restrictions on people’s liberty had been legally authorised.

There was an open culture and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible. Staff and the registered manager had a good understanding regarding supporting people with learning disabilities. However, the principles regarding person-centred planning (a way of helping a person to plan their life) had not always been followed. Staff had not always recorded goals for people to work towards and did not consistently record what people did or their achievements. We made a recommendation regarding this.

Medicines were now managed safely and stored in people’s individual rooms. Senior staff undertook regular checks and audits of medicines to reduce the risk of errors occurring.

Any risks relating to people’s care and support had been assessed and any action needed to reduce these risks were clearly recorded. When incidents had occurred the registered manager had analysed them and taken action to ensure they would not happen again. Staff knew how to keep people safe and any potential safeguarding incidents had been reported to the local authority safeguarding team. Lessons were learnt when things had gone wrong.

People’s preferences regarding their care and support had been recorded. Staff knew how to support people in the way they preferred. Some people had health conditions such as diabetes and epilepsy and these were stable and managed well.

Staff had an understanding of people’s equality and diversity needs and told us they wou

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 January 2018

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse.

Medicines were managed safely.

Risks relating to people�s care and support had been assessed and mitigated. When incidents occurred action was taken to learn from them and ensure they did not happen again.

The environment was safe and people were supported to keep the service clean and tidy.

There was always enough staff to give people the support they needed. Staff were recruited safely.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 16 January 2018

The service was not consistently effective.

Best interest decisions regarding people�s finances had not always been documented. Staff had an understanding of The Mental Capacity Act (2005) and any restrictions on people�s liberty had been legally authorised.

Staff had not kept consistent records of people�s achievements or set goals for them to achieve, in line with best practice when supporting people with learning disabilities.

Staff had received necessary training and had the support to carry out their roles effectively.

People had been involved in making decisions about the d�cor and design of the service.

Staff consulted with other professionals regarding people�s care and received support from the provider to provide consistent care.

People received support to manage their healthcare needs. People were supported to eat and drink safely.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 January 2018

The service was caring.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion.

Staff used a range of communication methods including pictures and signs to ensure people could be involved in making decisions about their care.

Staff treated people with respect and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 January 2018

The service was responsive.

There were clear guidelines in place for staff regarding how people liked to be supported. People took part in a range of activities both inside and outside of the service.

Staff knew people well and supported them to complain if they wished. All complaints were responded to in line with the provider�s policy.

Staff had supported people when their loved ones had died.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 January 2018

The service was well-led.

There was an open culture and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

The registered manager had a good knowledge of the regulatory requirements and had made improvements to the service.

People, their relatives, staff and other stakeholders were asked their views on the service.

The registered manager completed regular checks and audits and any issues were identified and rectified.

The service worked in partnership with a range of other agencies such as the local authority safeguarding and commissioning team.