We carried out a review of the data available to us about Lynwood 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 Lynwood, you can give feedback on this service.
Lynwood provides care and accommodation for up to three people with learning disabilities. On the days of our inspection there were three people living at the care home. In relation to Registering the Right Support we found this service was doing all the right things, ensuring choice and maximum control. Registering the Right Support (RRS) sets out CQC’s policy registration, variations to registration and inspecting services supporting people with a learning disability and/or autism.
Lynwood is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
There was 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. At the last inspection on the 30 June 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated good:
We met and observed the care given to two people who lived at Lynwood during the inspection; one person was away during the inspection. People were not able to easily verbalise their views and staff used other methods of communication. For example play, Makaton (similar to sign language), visual choices and observation of facial expressions and bodily movements to communicate with people and support them to express their needs.
People remained safe at the service. People were protected by safe recruitment procedures to help ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff confirmed there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and support them with activities and trips out.
People’s risks were assessed, monitored and managed by staff to help ensure they remained safe. Risk assessments were completed to enable people to retain as much independence as possible. People received their medicines safely by suitably trained staff.
People continued to receive care from staff who had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support them. Staff had completed safeguarding training and the Care Certificate (a nationally recognised training course for staff new to care). Staff confirmed the Care Certificate training looked at and discussed the Equality and Diversity.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies, systems and values in the service supported this practice. People's healthcare needs were met and their health was monitored by the staff team. People had access to a variety of healthcare professionals.
People’s care and support was based on legislation and best practice guidelines, helping to ensure the best outcomes for people. People’s legal rights were up held and consent to care was sought. Care plans were person centred and held comprehensive details on how people liked their needs were to be met, taking into account people’s preferences and wishes. Information recorded included people’s previous medical past, social history and people’s cultural, religious and spiritual needs.
People were observed to be treated with kindness and compassion by the staff who valued them. The staff, many who had worked at the service for some time, had built strong relationships with people. Staff respected people’s privacy. People or their representatives, were involved in decisions about the care and support people received.
The service remained responsive to people's individual needs and provided personalised care and support. People had complex communication needs and these were individually assessed and met. Speech and language advice had been sought to find the best way to communicate with people. People were able to make choices about their day to day lives. The provider had a complaints policy in place and the complaints process was discussed with people at residents’ meetings. This was available in an accessible format to help people raise concerns when they were not able to verbalise this. No concerns had been received. The senior staff we spoke with and the registered manager confirmed any complaints received would be fully investigated and responded to.
The service continued to be well led. People lived in a service where the registered manager’s values and vision were embedded into the service, staff and culture. Staff told us the registered manager was very approachable, well liked and respected and made themselves available. The registered manager and provider had monitoring systems which enabled them to identify good practices and areas of improvement. Quality assurance feedback was acted upon to make continued improvements.
People lived in a service which had been designed and adapted to meet their needs. People had access to the registered manager’s farm and enjoyed happy times with the animals. The service was monitored by the registered manager and provider to help ensure its ongoing quality and safety. The provider’s governance framework, helped monitor the culture and leadership of the service, as well as the ongoing quality and safety of the care people were receiving.
This inspection took place on 30 June 2016 and was unannounced. This service had not been inspected prior to this date.
The service had a registered manager. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Lynwood is located within a short walking distance of two other homes owned and run by the provider. One of these is located on the grounds of a small working farm. People who lived in Lynwood were able to visit the farm at any time and take part in animal care. The animals on the farm included horses, sheep, chickens, ducks and geese. Also located on the farm was a large vegetable garden, an art room and a workshop area which offered woodwork and mechanics.
People’s individual health and support needs were assessed and specific management plans had been put in place to meet these needs. Specialised external healthcare professionals had been consulted and involved in the creating of these plans alongside the people they related to, their relatives and staff. Where people displayed behaviours which may present risks to themselves or may heighten their anxieties, steps had been taken to ensure the best possible communication methods were being used to reduce these risks.
Where accidents and incidents had taken place, these had been reviewed and action had been taken to ensure the risk to people was minimised. Premises and equipment were maintained to ensure people were kept safe and there were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.
People were protected by staff who knew how to recognise possible signs of abuse. Staff told us what signs they would look for and the procedures they would follow to report these. Safeguarding contact numbers were accessible to staff and people who lived in Lynwood were also provided with information for reporting concerns.
Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure only people of good character were employed by the home. Potential staff underwent Disclosure and Barring Service (police record) checks to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.
Staff treated people with kindness and respect. People enjoyed pleasant and affectionate interactions with staff who spoke highly of the people they supported. Staff knew people’s preferences and used people’s preferred communication methods to speak with them and gain their views. Where people had specific routines, staff knew and respected these to ensure people felt as calm and comfortable as possible.
People benefited from a number of meaningful activities which met their individual interests. For example, people took part in music groups, walks, gardening, swimming and tending to animals on the farm. On the day of our inspection people were out and about taking part in activities with staff and enjoying themselves.
Staff had the competencies and the information required to meet people’s needs and support them to lead fulfilling lives. Staff received regular training, supervision and appraisal. Staff told us they could always ask for more training and supervisions if they wanted to.
Each person had a detailed care plan which had created using their relatives’, healthcare professionals and their own input. These care plans were highly person centred and contained people’s views and preferences. People were supported to participate in the reviews of their care and give their feedback on their experience of living in Lynwood.
Staff had a good understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and put this into practice. People were asked for their opinions and choices wherever possible, using individual communication methods. People were supported to be involved in every aspect of their care, including the recruitment of the staff who supported them. Some people were being deprived of their liberty as they were under constant supervision and were not able to leave the home on their own for their own safety. The registered manager had made the appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications and renewals.
Each person living in Lynwood received one to one care from staff during the day. There were sufficient numbers of staff to ensure people received the care they needed and were able to take part in the activities and outings they wanted.
People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. People chose what they wanted to eat and mealtimes were a sociable experience with staff eating alongside people. People were supported to make decisions about the foods they wanted to eat and mealtimes were relaxed and flexible in order to fit in with people’s daily lives.
All the people who lived in Lynwood required support with taking their medicines and staff had been trained to administer their medicines safely. There were systems in place to ensure medicines were managed safely.
There was a clear management structure at Lynwood with staff having a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Staff felt the management were approachable and supportive. There were systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the care being delivered. The management undertook regular spot checks and audits to ensure people’s care needs were being met, staff were displaying the home’s philosophy of care and documentation was being maintained. The home’s philosophy of care revolved around people being enabled to lead fulfilling and independent lives.
There was an open culture at the home with people, relatives and staff being encouraged to share their views and ideas. People and relatives were encouraged to make complaints when required and action was taken to listen, learn and act on these.