You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 May 2017

The inspection of the Old Manse took place on 24 March 2017 and was announced. As the service is a supported living scheme we gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure that staff would be available in the office to assist us with the inspection.

The Old Manse is a supported living service and provides personal care and support for adults and elderly people with learning disabilities and autism at three different sites in the Hindhead area. One was a shared house, one site was purpose built flats and one was a large building with individual bedrooms with shared communal living. The service enabled people to maintain and develop their skills and independence. At the time of our inspection there were nineteen people living there.

The service did not have a registered manager in place. 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. We can confirm that the provider has submitted an application to be registered as a manager with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

People and their relatives told us they were safe at the service and with the staff who provided care. Staff had a clear understanding about the signs of abuse and were aware of what to do if they suspected abuse was taking place. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from harm.

There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs safely. Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff started work. The provider ensured staff had the skills and experience which were necessary to carry out their role. Staff had received appropriate support that promoted their development. The staff team had an in depth knowledge about people’s care needs. People told us they felt supported by staff.

Medicines were managed, stored and disposed of safely. Any changes to people’s medicines were prescribed by the person’s GP or psychiatrist and administered appropriately.

Fire safety arrangements and risk assessments for the environment were in place to help keep people safe. The service had a contingency plan that identified how the service would function in the event of an unforeseeable emergency such as fire, adverse weather conditions, flooding or power cuts.

Staff were up to date with current guidance to support people to make decisions. Staff had a clear understanding of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) as well as their responsibilities in respect of this. Where people had restrictions placed on them these were done in their best interests using appropriate safeguards.

People had enough to eat and drink and there were arrangements in place to identify and support people who were nutritionally at risk. People were supported to have access to healthcare services and healthcare professionals were involved in the regular monitoring of their well-being. The provider worked effectively with healthcare professionals and was pro-active in referring people for assessment or treatment.

Staff treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. People’s preferences, likes and dislikes were at the centre of the service and support was provided in accordance with people’s wishes. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and promoted when personal care was undertaken.

People’s care and support were planned proactively in partnership with them. People’s needs were assessed when they entered the service and on a continuous basis to reflect changes in their needs. Staff understood the importance of promoting independence and choice. Staff had developed a good understanding of each person and then supported them to build their skills and confidence an

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 May 2017

The service was safe.

There were effective safeguarding procedures in place to protect people from potential abuse. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities in relation to this.

Risk assessments were in place to provide direction to staff and promote people’s safety.

There were plans in place to ensure that people’s care would not be interrupted in the event of an emergency.

Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff commenced work. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs.

People’s medicines were administered and stored safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 May 2017

The service was effective.

People’s care and support promoted their well-being in accordance to their needs. People were supported to have access to healthcare services and professionals were involved in the regular monitoring of their well-being.

Staff understood and knew how to apply legislation that supported people to consent to care and treatment. Where restrictions were in place this was in line with appropriate guidelines.

People were supported by staff who had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet their assessed needs.

People had enough to eat and drink and there were arrangements in place to identify and support people who were nutritionally at risk.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 May 2017

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and caring and had positive relationships with the people they supported.

Staff understood people’s needs and how they liked things to be done.

Staff respected people’s choices and provided their care in a way that promoted their independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 May 2017

The service was responsive.

People received personalised support by staff that knew them well. People were encouraged and supported to reach their goals.

People were able to maintain relationships with those who were important to them.

People had access to a wide range of personalised and group activities and had a say in all aspects of the running and development of the service.

People and relatives were encouraged to provide feedback to help improve the home.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 May 2017

The service was well- led.

People, relatives and professionals spoke positively about the service. People were involved in how the service was run in a number of ways and their feedback was sought.

The staff had the benefit of strong, focused leadership. The management team learned from discussing and sharing best practices with colleagues.

Staff had the opportunity to help the service improve and to ensure they were meeting people’s needs.

The service adopted a person centred environment that aided people with their care and support. Staff demonstrated these values in the support they provided to people.

Robust and frequent quality assurance processes ensured the safety, high quality and effectiveness of the service.