You are here

We are carrying out checks at Yarrow Housing Limited. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 July 2016

Yarrow Housing Limited provides care and support to people with a learning disability, in order to enable them to live independently in their own homes. People who use the service reside as tenants in a range of shared houses and flats owned by different local housing associations across five boroughs in West London.

This inspection was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection, to make sure that key staff would be available. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care to 72 people in 24 properties. At the previous inspection in February 2014 we found the provider was meeting the regulations inspected.

There was a registered manager in post at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. 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.

People received their personal care and support from staff they trusted and felt safe with. Staff had received training in how to protect people from abuse and knew how to raise any concerns in regards to people’s safety and wellbeing. People’s support plans showed that risks to their safety were identified and plans were put in place to mitigate the risks.

People told us they felt well supported by staff and confirmed that there were sufficient staff to meet their needs. Records showed that there were safe systems in place for the robust recruitment of new staff to ensure they were suitable to work with people who used the service.

Staff had received effective training, supervision and support to meet people’s needs. This included training about the Mental Capacity Act 2005, so that staff understood about supporting people to make their own choices and decisions. People told us they were supported to eat healthily and choose foods that met their dietary and/or cultural need, and to eat out at places of their choice. The provider supported people to meet their healthcare needs through assisting them to attend appointments and follow guidance from healthcare professionals, which was documented in people’s support plans.

People received a caring and compassionate service, which demonstrated some outstanding features. The provider consistently consulted with people and relatives to ensure that their needs and wishes were understood and met. People told us they felt valued as they took part in projects and open days organised by the provider and were supported to make meaningful contributions. The provider keenly sought to celebrate people’s achievements and ensure people understood that their needs were at the core of the organisation. People were treated with dignity and respect and staff protected their confidentiality and privacy.

People received a service that responded to their individual needs and was person centred. People’s needs were properly assessed, and their assessments and support plans were regularly reviewed to ensure they were relevant. The provider responded to people’s aspirations for more independence and their wishes to access community resources, such as regular visits to gyms, cinemas and shopping centres. People were confident about how to make a complaint and relatives said they thought complaints would be dealt with in an open and fair manner.

People received a service that was managed well by the registered manager and other members of the management team. The provider held a clear vision and values that were shaped by people’s contributions to their current strategy plan, and understood by people, relatives and staff. There were systems in place to regularly monitor the quality of the service and identify areas for improvement.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 July 2016

The service was safe.

People received personal care and support from staff they felt safe and comfortable with. Staff understood how to report any concerns in relation to people’s safety and welfare.

Robust risk assessments and risk management plans were in place to ensure that identified risks were appropriately managed.

Thorough procedures were used for staff recruitment to make sure that people received their personal care and support from suitable staff.

People’s prescribed medicines were safely managed.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 July 2016

The service was effective.

People’s choices and decisions were promoted by a staff team with suitable knowledge about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Staff received training and support in order to understand and meet people’s needs.

Systems were in place to support people to meet their health care and nutritional needs.

Caring

Outstanding

Updated 7 July 2016

The service was outstandingly caring.

People received personal care and support from compassionate and caring staff.

Staff supported people in a respectful manner and their entitlement to dignity was actively promoted.

People and their chosen representatives where applicable, were consistently consulted for their views and wishes in relation to the delivery of their personal care and support.

People were assured that their privacy and confidentiality was maintained.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 July 2016

The service was responsive.

People were encouraged to contribute and participate in the assessment and care planning process to develop their individual support plans.

Support plans were kept under regular review and updated as necessary in response to any changes in people’s needs, wishes and circumstances.

The provider took complaints and concerns seriously and responded to complainants in an open and professional manner.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 July 2016

The service was well-led.

People and their relatives commented positively about how the service was managed.

People, their relatives and staff had contributed to the production of the provider’s vision and values.

Various quality monitoring practices were used to ensure people were provided with a service that listened to their opinions and endeavoured to achieve improvements.