You are here

Archived: Low Fauld

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 August 2013
Date of Publication: 20 September 2013
Inspection Report published 20 September 2013 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 5 August 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

We looked at people’s care plans and records and spoke with them and staff about how they were supported at Low Fauld. We observed lively and positive interactions between staff and people in the home which made for a relaxed and friendly atmosphere. We observed staff responding sensitively to people and picking up cues from body language when they needed assistance or reassurance. People told us how well they got on with the staff team, saying that the staff were always easy to talk to. One person told us, "I like to spend time with the staff and go out. They help me to do things I like."

We saw the policies and procedures for admitting new people to the home. These were comprehensive and gave staff clear instructions to follow when assessing and admitting a person to the service. Senior staff told us about the referral and admissions procedures for the service. They described how due to the complex nature of people’s needs, particularly around behaviours that could challenge, there had been careful planning around compatibility issues and ensuring that the service had the skills to meet people’s needs.

We saw that often the assessments of people had been carried out over many months, involving visits to the place they were living and gaining detailed information from the provider of that service. A multidisciplinary team was involved in the assessment of people prior to admission, and this was on-going in the home. We looked at the assessment records for three people to see if their needs were identified. These were detailed and clearly showed each person’s needs. This had included identifying mental health needs and specialist needs of people with autism.

We spoke with staff about how care plans were developed in the service. They stated that person centred care plans were based on the detailed assessments completed as part of the admission procedure and by making use of previous knowledge from a variety of sources. We saw that people were receiving individualised care that was planned with the help of a range of professionals, the person, their families, previous care providers and by the use of independent advocates.

We saw that care plans were regularly monitored with formal reviews taking place. This included involvement of the individual at all stages appropriate to their abilities and capacity to understand. There was a great deal of individually focused work around people’s ability to understand and the home involved speech and language therapists to develop communication and understanding with people. We observed staff using ways of working with people as was set at in the individuals care plan and management strategies. We saw that staff were skilled at managing challenging behaviours and employed strategies that minimised risk and the need to use restraint and that minimised other restrictions on people. This allowed people whose behaviour may be termed as challenging, to access the community and enhanced their quality of life as a result.

A notable feature of this service was the person centred approach and the positive behaviour model used for supporting people whose behaviour could be termed as challenging. This had a positive impact on the experience for people using the service as people previously having lived in quite restrictive environments, such as hospitals, were now living in a community setting with active and interesting lives. They were being skilfully supported to take part in the local and wider community.

We found that people had received an annual health check and told us they had good access to local GPs, dentist and other community services. Staff were liaising with community healthcare professionals to ensure that health plans were up to date. We saw evidence that people’s medication was being regularly reviewed and where this was to help manage behaviours that may challenge this had involved a consultant psychiatrist. The home had also developed health passports that provided up to