We carried out a review of the data available to us about Castle Lane 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 Castle Lane, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
People enjoyed living at Castle Lane and felt safe. People felt staff knew them well and understood how to support them to stay safe. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.
• Staff recognised the risks to people's health, safety and well-being and how to support them by minimising the risk of harm.
• People had access to support from sufficient staff when needed.
• Staff recruitment processes were managed centrally by the registered provider and included a check of their background to review staff suitability to work at the home.
• People that required support with their medicines received this. Regular checks were undertaken to ensure people received the correct support by staff who were competent to help them.
• The home was clean and odour free and people were supported to keep their home tidy.
• The registered manager ensured people's care was based on best practice. Training for staff was continually reviewed to ensure it met people's needs.
• Guidance on people's needs was also shared through supervision and staff meetings.
• People were offered choices at mealtimes and encouraged to have a healthy lifestyle.
• People accessed support from a variety of healthcare professionals.
• People were treated with dignity and respect and their independence was promoted.
• People were involved in planning their care with support from staff.
• Staff supported people to enjoy a range of activities which reflected people's individual interests and levels of independence. People were encouraged to speak with staff and discuss and plan their care needs.
• People knew how to complain if they wanted to but did not have any complaints. Staff regularly spoke with people to ensure they were happy with their care. Systems were in place to take any learning from any complaints made.
• Staff enjoyed working at the home and spoke positively about the support and guidance received at the home.
• Staff worked together with the registered manager to ensure people's care was continually monitored, reviewed and reflected changing needs.
• The registered manager worked with stakeholders such as the college so people achieved their personal goals.
• The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support in the following ways; promotion of choice and control, independence, inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
Rating at last inspection: Good. The last report for Castle Lane was published on 17 March 2016.
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.
•We found the service met the characteristics of a “Good” rating in all areas; For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Castle Lane provides care and support for up to three people with learning disabilities, autism or autism spectrum disorders. The home is located in Solihull in the West Midlands. There were three people using the service when we visited. Each person had their own bedroom and there was a shared lounge, dining room and kitchen at the home.
The service had a registered manager. This is a requirement of the provider’s registration. 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 refer to the registered manager as the manager in the body of this report.
People told us they felt safe and liked living at Castle Lane. The atmosphere in the home was relaxed and friendly. Staff were able to talk confidently about how to keep people safe and understood their responsibility to report any concerns should they arise. The provider had recruitment procedures to ensure staff who worked at the home were of a suitable character to work with people who lived there.
The management team and staff knew the people at the home well and were committed to providing high quality care that met people’s individual needs.
People were involved in making decisions about how they sent their days and were supported to take part in a wide range of activities at home and outside of the home. People went on holidays of their choice. Staff supported people to be involved in daily tasks which helped increase and maintain people’s independence.
There were sufficient numbers of staff at Castle Lane who had the right skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels ensured staff were available to support people safely inside and outside the home.
Risk management plans informed staff how identified risks should be managed to keep people safe. People and their family members were involved in planning, and reviewing how they were cared for and supported. Care records gave staff the information they needed to ensure the care and supported provided reflected people’s preferences and needs.
People who lived at the home were supported to maintain links with family and friends who could visit the home at any time. Relatives thought staff were responsive to people’s needs and had the right skills and knowledge to provide care and support. Staff had completed the training necessary to effectively meet people’s needs.
The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The manager had made DoLS applications when any potential restrictions on a person’s liberty had been identified.
Staff supported people to attend health care appointments and to maintain their health and wellbeing. People had enough to eat and drink. People were supported to make food choices and offered alternatives if they did not like the food on offer. Staff followed health professional’s guidelines to ensure people’s meals were prepared and served to manage any nutritional risks. People received their medicines as prescribed from staff who had been trained in managing medicines safely.
Staff were motivated and provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They treated people with kindness and compassion and made positive comments to people that gave them a sense of self-worth. Staff respected people’s privacy and worked with people to ensure their dignity was maintained.
Everyone we spoke with felt the management team were approachable. There was good communication between people, staff members and the management team.
People and a relative told us they knew how to make a compliant if they needed to. Information about how to make a complaint was available in different formats to support people’s preferred way of communicating. No complaints had been received. All the people we talked with spoke very highly of the quality of the service provided, the staff and management team. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and drive continuous improvement.