You are here


Inspection carried out on 10 June 2016

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 20 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We talked with three people who lived at the cottage, who all said that they loved living there and that they enjoyed the activities they did with each other and the provider. We observed people in the home being free to undertake a range of activities including cooking and general household chores. Because of inclement weather, they told us that they were not able to go out and work on the farm that day. However we observed them being social over coffee and cake, doing puzzles and discussing what they would do on the farm when the weather improved.

We found that the home was well maintained with each person having their own room decorated and furnished to their taste. People told us that they go on holiday every year and also visit their families. People also did a weekly art session and attended a social club.

The provider ensured that care plans were reviewed every year and that, when needed, they arranged appointments for people with other health and social care providers.

We found evidence that the provider had an understanding of how to safeguard adults and knew what to do when an issue arose. We found evidence that there was sufficient staff with the right skills and experience at the home and systems in place to address their training needs.

We also found evidence that there was a complaints policy and procedures in place, although both the provider and the people living at Perry Cottage said it had never needed to be used.

Inspection carried out on 27 March 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with all three people who lived at the home and observed how they spent their time during the inspection visit. All the people we spoke with told us that they were happy at Perry Cottage. They were enthusiastic about their lives and what they did to help on the farm. We also spoke with two relatives who told us they were happy with the care at the home.

People�s consent to care was gained and we saw evidence that people received the care they needed. Staff had training in the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLS) to ensure people's rights were protected.

We saw up to date plans of care which considered individual physical, emotional and mental health care needs. We saw risk assessments and that all documentation was kept up to date to ensure people had their changing needs met. We saw that the home consulted with specialists to make sure people had the benefit of expert advice.

The home was safe and suitably designed to meet the needs of those who lived there.

The family did not employ any staff, (we have however referred to the family as staff through the report). We saw that Criminal Records Bureau checks had been completed for all family who had contact with people who lived at the home. Records did not contain any information to suggest that anyone was unsuitable to work with vulnerable people.

We saw that the home had an effective system to assess and monitor the quality of service.

Inspection carried out on 8 March 2012

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 8 March 2012. At the time of this inspection there were three men with learning disabilities living in the home. There was also a member of the provider�s family living there who required support from the providers. The men had lived together for a number of years and were close friends.

During our visit we talked to each of the people living there and heard about their daily lives and the things they enjoyed doing. We also talked to the providers and two members of their family who were involved in caring for the four people. We saw photographs and heard about the things people did and the places they had been. The providers ran a working farm and the men talked about their work on the farm. They showed us photographs of the animals they cared for and described the tasks they carried out every day. They told us they were very happy living there.

We heard about places people had visited and other things they enjoyed doing, including holidays abroad, clubs and social events. They were supported by the providers and their family (no other staff were employed) and we saw and heard lots of evidence of a close family atmosphere. For example, people showed us photographs of a family wedding in 2011 and it was evident that they were involved and respected as part of the provider's close family and friends.

We heard how people were encouraged to be as independent as possible, make choices, and have their say about daily life at Perry Cottage. They told us they felt safe, and were confident they could speak out if they were upset or worried about anything, and they knew they would be listened to and their concerns would be addressed.

After our visit we contacted two relatives by telephone. They told us they were completely happy with the support provided to their sons at Perry Cottage. Comments included �Couldn�t be more happy� and �Very satisfied�. They praised the providers for the care they provided, and we heard they were always kept informed and involved in their son�s care, including any health needs. We also spoke to a care manager who had reviewed the care of three of the men in the last year. She confirmed that people were well cared for.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)