You are here

Treefields Resource Centre Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 26 March 2020

About the service:

Treefields Resource Centre is a respite service providing short stay support to people with a learning disability. It can support up to six people at a time. The service is in Rotherham, in a quiet residential area.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service 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 control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service:

People told us they valued their time at Treefields. They described it being like a holiday, with one person who had just arrived for the weekend telling us they were “really happy” about being there. Staff supported people to tailor their stay to reflect their interests, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs. People described how they often stayed at the service at the same time as friends, and records showed staff tried to ensure they coordinated stays between people who got on well, as well as arranging stays at different times for people who did not get on. Staff spoke to people with respect, and there was a genuine warmth in the interactions between staff and people using the service. A relative told us they were always welcomed and said they really valued the service.

People were supported in a safe environment by staff who were deployed in sufficient numbers to meet their needs. The environment was well managed, with appropriate safety checks and auditing taking place, including audits of infection control procedures and fire safety.

Care plans were detailed and reflected people’s needs. They were regularly reviewed to ensure any changes to people’s needs were incorporated, and people and their relatives, where appropriate, were encouraged to be involved in these reviews. We noted, however, that improvements should be made in relation to how the provider obtained people’s consent. Risks were assessed and monitored safely.

Medicines were safely managed, and audits ensured managers had a good oversight of this. We found, however, the provider did not have appropriate records in place for when people had their medication on an “as and when” basis. The registered manager told us work was ongoing in this area.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. We did note, however, that work was required to better evidence how consent was obtained.

Staff were recruited safely, with appropriate background checks being made. Records showed staff received training in a wide range of relevant areas, and staff exhibited a good knowledge about how to support people using the service.

There was a registered manager who was relatively new in post. They oversaw management of the service using a range of audit tools, and were supported by a deputy manager and a team of senior support workers. We identified the provider had failed to make certain, legally required, notifications to CQC when suspected abuse had taken place. The registered manager told us they were not aware of this legal requirement.

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was good (published August 2017)

Why we inspected:

This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may in

Inspection areas



Updated 26 March 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 26 March 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 26 March 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 26 March 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 26 March 2020

The service was not always well led.

Details are in our well led findings below.