Archived: Homefield View

Homefield View provides residential care and support to people with learning disabilities in the further education sector. The service can support six people. Six young adults were using the service at the time of inspection. Everyone using the service attends college during the day. Some people return to their family homes at weekends and in college holidays.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

There were some areas where processes needed to be strengthened and the registered manager was already working on these. These included effective processes for management oversight of the quality assurance system, embedding a schedule of regular team meetings and staff supervision sessions and ensuring that care files contained all assessments, for example, those relating to mental capacity decisions.

People were cared for safely. A range of individual risk assessments were in place to reduce known risks to people. Staff understood safeguarding procedures. Safe recruitment practices were followed to ensure staff were suitable for their roles.

There were enough staff to meet people’s care needs. People were supported with their medicines. The service was clean and fresh, all staff had been trained in infection control.

People’s care records contained information covering all aspects of their care and support needs. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and individual preferences. People’s personal histories, preferences and dislikes, diversity needs such as cultural or religious needs and links with family were all considered within the care plans. Staff received training to meet people’s needs.

Where required, people were supported with their eating and drinking to ensure their dietary requirements were met. People were supported to access health care services when needed.

People received support from reliable, compassionate staff. Staff enjoyed working at the service and there was good communication and team work. Staff were caring in their approach and had good relationships with people. People were treated with respect. Staff maintained people’s dignity and promoted their independence. Consent was sought, and staff took time to help people communicate their wishes using their preferred means.

The registered manager worked in an open and transparent way and was passionate about ensuring that people received good care. The service was in regular communication with relatives. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint and were confident that any issues raised would be dealt with.

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.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

The last rating for this service was Good (published July 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow Up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Homefield View provides residential care and support to people with learning disabilities in the further education sector. At the time of our inspection there were five people using the service.

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 legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People and their relatives told us that they felt safe while they received support from staff at Homefield View. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. There were procedures in place to manage incidents and accidents.

Risks to people’s well-being had been assessed. Where risks had been identified control measures were in place.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff had been checked for their suitability before starting work. Staff received support through an induction and regular supervision. There was training available for staff to update them on safe ways of working and how to meet people’s needs.

People’s equipment was regularly checked and there were plans to keep people safe during significant events such as a fire. The building was well maintained and kept in a safe condition. Evacuation plans had been written for each person, to help support them safely in the event of an emergency.

Where people had medicines that were taken as and when required there were not always guidelines in place for staff to follow. Staff had been trained to administer medicines. Their competency to do this had been checked but had not been reviewed. The registered manager told us that this was to be implemented from the beginning of July 2017.

People chose their own food and drink and were encouraged to maintain a healthy diet. They had access to healthcare services when required to promote their well-being.

People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff and the registered manager had an understanding of the MCA. We found that people’s capacity to make a specific decision had been considered where necessary. Staff told us that they sought people’s consent before delivering their support.

People received support from staff who showed kindness and compassion. Their dignity and privacy was protected including staff discussing people in a professional and discreet manner. Staff knew people’s communication preferences and used these to support people effectively.

People were involved in decisions about their support. We saw that people’s records were stored safely.

People were supported to develop skills to maintain their independence. People and their relatives had contributed to the planning and review of their support. People had care plans that were centred on them as an individual. Staff knew how to support people based on their preferences and how they wanted to be supported. People took part in activities, hobbies and work or volunteer placements that they enjoyed.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint. The provider had a complaints policy in place that was available for people and their relatives. However, some people did not remember where this was found.

People, their relatives and staff felt the service was well managed. The service was led by a registered manager who understood their responsibilities under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. Staff felt supported by the registered manager.

Systems were in place which assessed and monitored the quality of the service and identified areas for improvement. People and their relatives were asked for feedback about the service that they had received.

that the staff and provider did not know that we would be visiting.

Homefield View provides residential care and support for up to five people with learning disabilities in the further education sector. At the time of our inspection there were two people using the service.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 5 October 2015.

A breach of legal requirements were found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to a breach of Regulation 11; need for consent of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Homefield View on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

There was 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.

At the last inspection we carried out on 5 October 2015 we found the provider had not met the

Regulation where people lacked the capacity to consent to their care and treatment the provider had failed to act in accordance with the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). At this inspection we found the provider had made some of the required improvements.

The registered manager and staff understood their responsibility to ensure people were supported in line with the MCA and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We saw that work was under way to increase people’s involvement in decisions about their lives. At the time of our inspection this work had not been completed and as a result capacity assessments and best interest decisions were still outstanding for one person.

Staff had received training and supervision to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff told us that they felt supported.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met. Staff encouraged healthy lifestyle choices. People’s health needs were met and, where necessary, outside health professionals were contacted for support. People’s health records were being maintained.

People and staff felt that the registered manager was approachable and were confident action would be taken to address any concerns should they have raised them. The provider carried out regular quality checks on the service and had a range of audit systems in place to measure the quality and care delivered so that sustained improvements could be made.

We found that people had access to a wide range of community facilities and courses, dependent on their individual needs and choices. These included activities such as learning independent living skills, horticulture, art, drama and swimming. The service had a fully working caf' known as 'Barrow Treats' in a neighbouring village and people were supported to work within the caf' as part of their timetable of activities. In addition, the service also had an internet caf' known as 'Sip and Surf' in Loughborough. People were encouraged and supported to participate in cleaning, food shopping and meal preparation and we found that people's independence was promoted by the service.

We looked at the records of two people who used the service and found care plans were detailed and thorough and provided clear guidance to staff about how the persons' care should be delivered.

However, we found that the service did not have suitable arrangements in place for obtaining people's consent and acting in accordance with the best interests of the person when they were unable to consent to the care and treatment being provided.

Staff had been appropriately screened to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of people who used the service and treated people with dignity and respect.

Records we looked at were accurate and fit for purpose.