You are here

Archived: William Morris House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 28 March 2017

During a routine inspection

William Morris House is a specialist residential college that forms part of the Camphill Community. The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 35 young people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder either during term time or a full-time 52 week placement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates and inspects the accommodation and personal care. The educational provision at the college is regulated and inspected by the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED).

At the time of this inspection eight people were using the service. Five people using the service lived in one house (Hiram) three people in another (Merton). Additional accommodation was being used for activities and staff training with some being refurbished to provide more independent flats.

At our last inspection in November 2015 we found, a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because, people’s capacity to make choices and decisions and consent to their care and treatment, had not been assessed and any restrictions upon people’s liberty had not been identified. At this inspection we saw the provider had taken the action they had identified in their action plan. As a result improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach of this regulation.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good overall.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good:

The service was designed and delivered around the individual needs of people, provided by caring staff who were well supported by managers and, was continually seeking to improve. We did not find any breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 during this inspection.

People were safe. The manager and staff understood their role and responsibilities to keep people

safe from harm. People were supported to take risks, promote their independence and follow their interests. Risks were assessed and plans put in place to keep people safe. There was enough staff to safely provide care and support to people. Checks were carried out on staff before they started work with people to assess their suitability. Medicines were well managed and people received their medicines as prescribed.

The service was effective in meeting people’s needs. Staff received regular supervision and the training needed to meet people’s needs. Arrangements were made for people to see a GP and other healthcare professionals when they needed to do so. The physical environment was personalised and met people’s needs. The service complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People received a service that was caring. They were cared for and supported by staff who knew them well. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People’s views were actively sought and they were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Information was provided in ways that were easy to understand. People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends.

The service was exceptionally responsive to people’s needs. People received person centred care and support. They were offered a range of activities both at the service and in the local community. People were encouraged to make their views known and the service responded by making changes. Effective communication was maintained with relatives. Staff worked hard to ensure people’s moves to and from the service were managed in a manner that minimised disruption and ensured their needs were met.

The service was well led. The manager worked closely with the strategic director and met regularly with the trustees. Trustees are responsible for making sure charitable organisations do what they have been set up for, they are unpaid and usually carry out these duties through regular meetings with the senior staff. The manager, senior staff and trustees provided goo

Inspection carried out on 4 and 5 November 2015

During a routine inspection

William Morris House is a specialist residential college that forms part of the Camphill Community. The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 35 young people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder during term time. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates and inspects the accommodation and personal care. The educational provision at the college is regulated and inspected by the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED).

At the time of our inspection eight people were using the service. Five people using the service lived in one house (Hiram) three people in another (Merton). Additional accommodation was being used for activities and staff training. The provider had plans in place to increase the numbers of people using the service.

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 4 and 5 November 2015.

There was no registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. The manager of the service had applied to the Care Quality Commission to become the 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.

We found a breach of Regulation 11 (1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

The service people received was not always effective. The service did not comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People’s capacity to make choices and decisions had not been assessed and any restrictions upon people’s liberty had not been identified.

People were safe. The registered manager and staff understood their role and responsibilities to keep people safe from harm. People were supported to take risks, promote their independence and follow their interests. Risks were assessed and plans put in place to keep people safe. There was enough staff to safely provide care and support to people. Checks were carried out on staff before they started work with people to assess their suitability. Medicines were well managed and people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff received regular supervision and the training needed to meet people’s needs. Arrangements were made for people to see their GP and other healthcare professionals when they needed to do so. The physical environment was personalised and met people’s needs.

People received a service that was caring. They were cared for and supported by staff who knew them well. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People’s views were actively sought and they were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Information was provided in ways that were easy to understand. People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends.

People received person centred care and support. They were offered a range of activities both at the service and in the local community. People were encouraged to make their views known and the service responded by making changes. Relatives said communication between the managers, staff and them was not always good.

The service was well led. The manager, senior staff and trustees provided good leadership and management. The vision and culture of the service was clearly communicated to and understood by staff. The management team demonstrated good leadership and management, particularly with respect to developing the vision and values of the service. However, relatives felt changes had not been communicated clearly and had been implemented too quickly. The quality of service people received was monitored on a regular basis and where shortfalls were identified they were acted upon.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Inspection carried out on 22, 23 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We visited William Morris House over two days and talked with a group of students during lunch. The students told us they liked living at the William Morris House. They felt they were treated with dignity and respect.

Students using the service could complain to staff and the registered manager if they were unhappy. Students we spoke with told us �If I am unhappy the staff encourage me to talk� and �I am happy here and the staff encourage us to talk to them�.

One student we spoke with told us they liked to clean their bedroom, change their bed linen and help to prepare meals. Staff told us they encouraged people to take part in the day to day household tasks.

It was a positive inspection and we could see that students were well cared for and supported. They were happy and positive about the college and they enjoyed learning. Staff were dedicated and caring and it was evident through observation and in discussions they enjoyed supporting the students and helping them learn

Inspection carried out on 19, 26 June 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We met and talked with students who lived at the college during the term time and asked them about their experience. The students and parents spoke positively about the college and said that the �staff are very helpful and supportive�.

People we talked with told us that they had found the college "good" and staff "professional". The students said that they had not been rushed and that all the options available to them were explored when choosing their classes and care.