You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 July 2016

The inspection took place on 10 June 2016 and was announced. We gave the provider short notice of the inspection as the home is small and we wanted to be sure someone was in when we visited the home.

Perry Cottage provides accommodation with personal care for a maximum of four adults who have a learning disability diagnosis.

The home is located in the rural hamlet of Fluxton, which is near Ottery Saint Mary in Devon. The house is situated on a farm. One of the providers is also the registered manager and both providers work at the home. 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.

The home had previously been inspected in November 2013 and had met all the standards inspected.

At the time of our inspection, four people were living at Perry Cottage, all of whom had been resident at the home for a number of years. One person living in the home was a relative of the provider.

The home was normally staffed by the two providers, although they had employed a relative to run an activity session for one morning a week. There was sufficient staffing to meet people’s needs and promote their choices. The providers had a clear vision for the home and ensured they promoted independence and choice with all the people living there. There was strong evidence of very positive relationships between everyone in Perry Cottage with lots of laughter and banter going on through the inspection.

All four people living at Perry Cottage said they were happy and liked living in the home. The home had a very relaxed, homely feel. People moved freely around all parts of the home and had personalised their bedrooms to suit their own tastes. People and their relatives described the home as an extended family. Throughout the inspection it was obvious that not only did people know the providers, they also knew the provider’s family. People had been invited to the provider’s family celebrations including two weddings.

Each person had a detailed care record. Documents within the care records described the risks to people and how people were supported to minimise these risks. Both providers understood their responsibilities with respect to safeguarding vulnerable adults. Two people who had regular prescribed medicines administered the medicines themselves. The provider supported them to be as independent as possible with this, by checking that the administration had been carried out correctly.

Care records described appointments with health professionals and what the outcomes of these appointments were. There was evidence that the advice received was acted on.

The providers understood their responsibilities in relation to acting within the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People had been assessed in terms of their capacity to make certain decisions, but wherever possible the providers encouraged people to be independent. The provider said they planned to discuss with the local authorities whether it was necessary to apply for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations for any of the people at Perry Cottage.

People were provided with a balanced diet and received sufficient food and drink to ensure their nutritional needs were met. People said they liked the food and also enjoyed getting involved in meal preparation.

People did a number of varied activities including working on the farm, going to clubs and social events as well as being involved in music, art and cooking sessions in the home. People clearly enjoyed these activities and were enthusiastic about them when describing what they did.

Checks to ensure the safety and quality of the home, equipment and the services provided were undertaken regularly. Where an issue was id

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 July 2016

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse by providers who understood how to safeguard vulnerable adults.

Risks to people had been assessed to support them to receive good care and support

The providers managed and ran the service themselves, which was sufficient to meet people�s needs

Medicines were usually self-administered, although the providers ensured this was carried out safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 July 2016

The service was effective.

Both the providers had the knowledge, skills and experience to support people to receive effective care.

The providers worked within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). The provider was discussing with the local authority whether applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were needed for any of the people at Perry Cottage.

People were supported to have a balanced diet of their choice.

People were supported to access health services regularly.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 July 2016

The service was very caring.

People in the service were considered, and considered themselves, to be part of an extended family.

People were encouraged to maintain close links with their families.

People�s privacy and dignity was respected

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 July 2016

The service was responsive.

People were actively involved in the service.

There were systems in place for the provider to listen to people�s concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 July 2016

The service was well-led

The visions and values of the service were person-centred and inclusive.

The providers promoted and delivered this vision and the values.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and ensure it met standards