We carried out a review of the data available to us about Deansbrook Farm on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Deansbrook Farm, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The provider had put measures in place to safely enable visitors back into the service, in line with government guidelines.
The provider had considered the impact of the pandemic on people’s wellbeing. When people had been unable to continue their regular activities, staff had involved people in choosing new hobbies including bird watching, building an insect house and creating a library.
The provider completed regular infection prevention and control audits to ensure the service was following the correct procedures. This included checking the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and ensuring communal spaces were regularly cleaned and well ventilated.
Services for people with learning disabilities and or autism are supported
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.
The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 10 people. Eight people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Staff understood the risks to people and the measures in place to keep them safe. Risks to people were assessed and managed well.
Systems were in place to ensure people’s medicines were managed safely. The service was involved in a national project stopping over medication of people with a learning disability, autism or both with psychotropic medicines (STOMP). This was having a positive impact on people’s quality of life.
Staff remained committed to supporting people to manage their anxieties and behaviours in a positive way.
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.
Sufficient numbers of staff were employed to meet people’s needs. The recruitment, induction and training processes in place ensured staff had the right skills and experience and were suitable to work with people who used the service.
The service applied the principles and values consistently 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. The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
The management team and staff were committed to providing a person-centred culture which valued people as individuals. Staff were intuitively caring and were observed treating people with dignity and respect.
People had access to food and drink based on their individual choice and preferences.
People were receiving personalised care responsive to their needs, including access to health care services. Staff worked well with other professionals and services to ensure people received the support they need to stay well and safe.
People’s communication needs had been assessed and were meeting the requirements of the Accessible Information Standards. This set of standards sets out the specific, approach for providers of health and social care to meet the communication needs of people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss.
Work was in progress to develop End of Life care plans to ensure people’s wishes would be taken into account at such time.
Systems were in place to assess the quality of the service and ensure risks and regulatory requirements were being understood and managed.
There continues to be a positive, open and inclusive culture in the service. Where things had gone wrong, systems were in place to learn from such incidents and make the necessary improvements.
Rating at last inspection: Good (Report published 08 November 2016)
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor all intelligence received about this service to ensure that the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Deansbrook Farm on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
There was a positive, open and inclusive culture in the service. The ethos of care was person-centred and valued each person as an individual. People were consistently treated with kindness, dignity, respect and understanding.
People received person centred care from staff who had an in-depth knowledge and understanding of each person, about their life and what mattered to them. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and recruitment processes checked the suitability of staff to work in the service.
Care plans reflected the care and support that each person required and preferred to meet their assessed needs, promote their health and wellbeing and enhance their quality of life.
People presented as relaxed and at ease in their surroundings and told us that they felt safe. Staff knew how to minimise risks and provide people with safe care. Procedures were in place which safeguarded the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. People knew how to raise concerns and were confident that any concerns would be listened and responded to.
People were provided with their medicines when they needed them and in a safe manner. People were prompted, encouraged and reassured as they took their medicines and given the time they needed.
Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent to the support they were providing. The management team and staff understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People were empowered to have choice, independence and control.
The service had a quality assurance system in place which was used to identify shortfalls and to drive continuous improvement.
During our inspection on 4 June and an additional visit on 6 June 2014 we spoke with five people who used the service. We also spoke with the registered manager and nine staff.
Deansbrook Farm provided a service for seven people at the time of our inspection. Some people who used the service were not able to tell us verbally about their views and experiences so we used observation and interaction to gain an understanding of their care and support.
We looked at the care and support records for three people who used the service, records relating to consent and the safeguarding of vulnerable adults from abuse, staffing, support and supervision and quality assurance checks.
We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?
This is a summary of what we found;
Is the service safe?
Staff had received a range of training to protect people who used the service from harm. They were aware of the action they needed to take if they suspected abuse had taken place.
We found that the service had suitable arrangements in place to assess people's mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.
Mental capacity assessments had been completed appropriately and applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been made.
The policies, procedures and quality monitoring of the service included health and safety, fire evacuation and reviews of care planning and delivery. People were provided with care and support that ensured their welfare and safety.
Is the service effective?
People's assessments showed that their care and support was planned and delivered in a way that ensured that their needs were being met.
Individualised care meant that people were fully involved, where possible, in choices and decisions about their lives. This made their care and support more effective as it enhanced their wellbeing and independence. One person said, 'I get on alright here, I like it here, I get to do things.'
Is the service caring?
We saw positive interaction between staff and people who used the service. Staff spoke with people in a caring, respectful, considerate and encouraging way.
Staff had a good knowledge of people's likes and dislikes, their everyday needs and their personalities. People's preferences and diverse needs had been recorded in their support files and care and protection was provided in accordance with their wishes. One person said, 'They [staff member] are nice, I like them.'
Is the service responsive?
Regular checks on the needs of people who used the service were undertaken to ensure there were sufficient staff on duty to respond to people's needs appropriately.
The service offered a range of activities for people to enjoy. These had been developed from listening to the views of people who used the service and information from people who knew them well. One person said, 'I like going out.'
The service worked well with other agencies. A range of health and social care professionals from the community were involved in people's care. This showed that people received their care in a joined up way.
Is the service well-led?
A comprehensive quality monitoring process and on-going improvement plan was in place.
Regular care reviews were held with the input from specialist professionals about people's complex behaviour and quality of life. This ensured that the service put people's needs first and ensured that staff were able to support them appropriately.
The service was well-led as it was continually improving in its care provision and in the environment to make Deansbrook Farm a good place to live and work.
We observed staff speaking with people and giving them choice over which activities they wanted to participate in, and how they wanted to spend their day.
People received care and support that met their needs and which took into account their individual preferences. Staff were able to demonstrate that they understood people's specific needs and that the care provided was person-centred.
We reviewed the provision of food and drink and people told us they liked the food provided.
We found that staff received the training and support they required to provide care and support safely.
We saw there were procedures in place to respond to people's complaints appropriately.
Staff provided care, support and direction in a sensitive and encouraging way. This meant that people were enabled to carry out and enjoy everyday tasks and activities both in the home and in the community. One person said, 'The staff are alright here, they are going to help me stick to things and then I can go to college maybe'.
All the necessary policies and procedures, records, quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place for the protection of people who lived at Deansbrook Farm. Staff were supported by the management and carried out their support roles efficiently and professionally.