You are here

Barleyfields House Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 5 March 2020

About the service

Barleyfields House is a respite care service. It is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to a maximum of five people, at any one time. At the time of inspection 48 people with learning disabilities access the service for respite care at different times throughout the year.

The accommodation consists of a single-story building. There are five main bedrooms and a sleep-in room for staff. People have access to adapted bathrooms, communal space and a large garden.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

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 and what we found

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

People’s medicine requirements were updated on a regular basis. However, the guidance in place did not always contain sufficient detail to ensure medicine was given as intended. We recommended the provider reviewed the guidance in place for each person, before their next visit, to ensure it was accurate.

Risks to people’s safety were assessed and action was taken to mitigate the risk of harm. Equipment used by people was assessed but there was not always clear instructions on how the person should use the equipment or to confirm checks had been made. For example, how often it should be used.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff and staff suitability was checked as part of the recruitment process. We found one staff file where a full employment history had not been gathered and the provider acted to rectify this.

The governance systems used by the provider had not identified the concerns we found as part of the inspection process.

People were protected from harm by staff who had been trained and felt confident raising concerns. Lessons were learnt when things went wrong, and staff maintained a high level of cleanliness in the home.

People’s care needs were assessed, and a care plan developed. Staff completed observations of how well people settled into the service as part of the assessment process. Staff received training to support them in their role and accessed specialised courses in subjects such as, Makaton.

People had access to sufficient quantities of food and drink of their choosing and, staff knew how to support people with differing eating habits. People were supported with any ongoing health issues and the accommodation was adapted to meet the needs of people with additional physical disabilities.

The provider worked with others to ensure people could continue to access services which were important to them. For example, college or day services. 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 were treated with kindness and staff ensured people and their families were involved in decisions about their care. Dignity and privacy were promoted, and staff encouraged people to complete tasks independently before offer

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 5 March 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 March 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 March 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 March 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 5 March 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.