We carried out a review of the data available to us about Barley House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Barley House, you can give feedback on this service.
Barley House is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to two people. The service is registered to provide care and support to two people.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence.
People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were supported by a caring, knowledgeable and committed staff team. The staff team were well led by a senior team committed to promoting person centred care within a framework of robust monitoring and developments. There were systems in place to monitor standards and plan continual improvements.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for the people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. The person’s support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
People were supported by staff who respected them and knew them well. The staff were kind and compassionate. Staff were happy in their jobs and wanted to provide the best care they could. People had built positive relationships with staff and appreciated the familiarity they had. Staff understood how people communicated.
People were relaxed in the company of staff. The staff understood their responsibilities and how to protect people from abuse. Staff understood the risks people faced and the support they needed to reduce these risks.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff respected people’s choices and preferences.
People had access to healthcare when they needed it. Appointments for routine monitoring, such as dental and optician appointments, had been made. People were supported to eat and drink safely and their preferences were reflected in the food they shopped for.
People were supported to fill their time with things they found enjoyable and/or meaningful. They were supported to maintain important relationships.
Staff felt supported by the management team. All staff shared an ethos of personalised care and support to enable people to live the life they chose to live.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published August 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
At the time of the inspection there were two people living at the home.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated Good
People were supported by adequate numbers of staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of harm and abuse. There were systems in place to identify and manage risks.
People felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them. One person who lived at the home said “I like it here. I like the staff. They are nice.” The other person who lived at the home told us “I am very happy here: Yes. The staff are good to me.”
People continued to receive effective care. People were supported by staff who were well trained and competent in their roles. People’s health care needs were monitored and met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The home continued to provide a caring service to people. Staff were kind, considerate and patient when they supported people. A relative told us “The staff are excellent. They look after [name of person] really well. They are very helpful and very caring.”
People received care which was responsive to their needs and preferences. A relative said “The staff are very aware of [name of person’s] medical problems and involve us and the GP. We have no concerns. They are fully aware and always keep us up to date.”
The service continued to be well led. The registered manager was very visible in the home and knew people very well. Staff told us the management within the home were open and approachable. The registered manager and provider continually monitored the quality of the service and made improvements where needed.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
This inspection took place on 26 June 2015 and was unannounced.
The service provided accommodation and personal care for two adults with a learning disability or other associated mental health needs. At the time of the inspection there were two people living in the home. People in the home could sometimes display repetitive or harmful patterns of behaviour when they were distressed or anxious. People were able to carry out most of their own personal care routines with some prompting or assistance from staff. They could communicate verbally but had varying levels of language skills. To keep people safe they needed the support of staff or their relatives to go out into the community.
The service had a registered manager in post. 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.
People had choice and control over their daily routines and staff respected and acted on the decisions people made. Where people lacked the mental capacity to make certain decisions about their care and welfare the provider knew how to protect people’s rights.
We heard staff consulting people about their daily routines and activities. One person said “Staff always treat me well and they let me decide what I want to do”. People were able to decide when to get up and go to bed, whether or not they wanted assistance with aspects of personal care, meal choices and whether they wished to spend time on their own. No one was made to do anything they did not want to.
Care plans contained records of people’s preferences including their personal likes and dislikes. This helped staff to provide care and support in a way that suited each person’s individual preferences.
People were supported to be as independent as they wanted to be. They helped with daily living tasks such as meal preparation and cleaning. People were supported to visit relatives, access the community and participate in social or leisure activities on a regular basis.
People got on well with staff and management. One person said “I’m very happy. I get on well with all the staff”. The provider employed a small team of staff to support the people living in the home. This ensured consistency and meant staff and people got to know each other well.
People felt safe and staff knew how to protect them from abuse. One person said “Nobody is nasty with me”. Care plans included individual risk assessments to enable people to participate in activities they enjoyed while minimising the risk of avoidable harm.
People had regular contact with their relatives which helped maintain family relationships. Relatives were encouraged to visit the home as often as they wished and staff supported people to visit their families.
Staff received appropriate training and were assessed by management to ensure they supported and cared for people safely and competently. There were sufficient numbers of staff available to keep people safe and to meet their needs. Staff said they all worked together as a really supportive team and a senior person was always available if they needed advice or support. People were also supported to access external healthcare professionals when required.
The provider had a quality assurance system to check their policies and procedures were effective and to identify any areas for improvement.