We carried out a review of the data available to us about Scottlyn 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 Scottlyn, you can give feedback on this service.
Scottlyn is a residential care home which provides accommodation and support for people with a learning disability or autism. The service provides personal care and support to up to eight people. At the time of the inspection there were seven people living at the service.
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
At the last inspection of the service we found the provider had failed to ensure robust systems were in place to effectively monitor the quality and safety of the service and mitigate the associated risks. Since the last inspection the provider had improved the quality assurance systems, this led to effective measures being in place to monitor the quality of service being delivered. Sufficient improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 17.
Due to the circumstances surrounding Covid-19 at the time of inspection we were only able to speak with people using the service briefly. One person said they liked living at Scottlyn. They told us “I like to do the garden.” Relatives we spoke with after the inspection said they felt the registered manager and staff had worked hard to keep their loved ones safe during these unprecedented times. One relative told us “[Relative’s name] receives excellent care. They are all doing a good job of keeping all the residents safe.”
Relatives did not have any concerns regarding infection prevention and control practices and told us they found the home to be clean and tidy. Risks relating to infection control and prevention had been assessed and plans put in place to manage these.
Relatives told us they had been supported to maintain contact with their loved ones. They told us measures were in place to support them to be able to safely attend face to face visits. This included the use of personal protective equipment and them adhering to social distancing.
Relatives told us they were able to raise any concerns and share their views with management. We received feedback from health and social care professionals who worked alongside the service and all of them spoke positively about the partnership working with the management and staff.
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 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 was 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
Rating at last inspection and update
The service was rated as requires improvement at the last inspection (published 18 February 2020).
Why we inspected
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 11 December 2019. During the inspection we identified a breach of legal requirements. Following the inspection, the provider submitted an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve safe care and treatment and good governance.
We completed this focused inspection to make sure they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to two key domains, Safe and Well-led.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.
The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key domains not looked at during this inspection were used in calculating the overall rating for this inspection. The overall rating for the service therefore has improved to Good based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Scottlyn on our website at www.cqc.org.uk
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Scottlyn is a residential care home which provides accommodation and support for people with a learning disability or autism and younger adults. The service provides personal care and support to up to eight people. At the time of the inspection there were seven people living at the service.
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
The registered provider had not ensured effective systems were in place to audit and monitor quality to drive improvements. Additionally, they had not ensured measures were in place to support the registered manager in their job role.
The registered provider had failed to assess the impact to the service of the registered manager covering shortfalls in staffing which had impacted on their ability to complete managerial tasks. Fire drills had not been undertaken to assess if staff could safely evacuate people from the service in the event of an emergency.
The registered provider was not a visible presence within the service. We have made a recommendation that the registered provider considers how they engage more closely with people, their relatives and staff.
People told us they felt safe and relatives confirmed they had no safety concerns. Systems were in place for reporting and responding to any allegations of abuse. Staff knew how to safeguard people and were confident to raise any concerns.
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.
There were enough staff to meet the needs of people and staff worked flexibly to accommodate this. Systems were in place to ensure staff were recruited safely. Staff feedback confirmed they felt well supported by the registered manager and received training relevant to their job role. Staff received supervision and appraisal in line with the providers policy.
Assessments of people’s needs were completed. People received person-centred care which met their needs and were encouraged to be independent. Where risks were identified measures to mitigate the risks people were exposed to were in place. One person had not received a pre-admission assessment prior to moving to the service. We have made a recommendation the registered provider reviews their assessment procedures to ensure best practice guidelines are always followed.
Staff were respectful and treated people with kindness and care. The cultural needs of people were considered in the planning of care and individuals and were involved and consulted in how they wanted support to be delivered. Relatives were welcomes into the service and staff supported people to maintain relationships with the people of their choice.
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 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
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 14 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Enforcement
We have identified breaches in relation to good governance at this inspection. Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.
Follow up
We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
A registered manager was in post and our records showed they had been registered with CQC since August 2014. 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 last inspected the service on 22 and 23 December 2014. We found one breach of regulations related to good governance.
At the last inspection we found that systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service were not sufficiently robust to pick up all of the shortfalls we identified. At this inspection we found that steps had been taken to address this issue and improved systems were in place. Fire safety checks which we found had lapsed at our last inspection had recommenced.
A fire safety officer report raised a concern about one night staff member being able to evacuate the premises sufficiently quickly in the event of a fire at night. They asked for timed drills to be carried out which had taken place, and fell within the required timescale for evacuation. We spoke with the fire safety officer who told us they planned to go and observe the evacuation. We have asked them to contact us following their visit for feedback.
A number of safety checks of the premises were carried out, including Legionella, gas and electrical safety checks. The premises were well maintained and clean.
There were some staff vacancies but there were suitable numbers of staff on duty during our inspection. Recruitment of new staff was in progress. The registered manager told us they tried wherever possible to avoid bringing too many new staff into the service to support people in order to maintain familiarity and consistency of care. Safe recruitment procedures continued to be followed.
Individual risks to be people had been assessed, and plans were in place to mitigate these. Accidents and incidents were analysed by the registered manager to check for any patterns or trends.
Training continued to be provided by the provider, including health and safety training they considered mandatory, and also training specific to the needs of people using the service. Health needs of people were met and they had access to a variety of health professionals.
People were supported with eating and drinking, and were offered a choice of meals. A healthy balanced diet was promoted and special dietary needs were catered for. Adaptive cutlery was available for people to maximise their independence with eating and drinking. Support at mealtimes was provided sensitively and discreetly.
The provider continued to operate within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Records relating to mental capacity, consent and best interests decisions were suitably maintained.
People's bedrooms were homely and personalised. A large garden area was available to the rear of the home where people enjoyed gardening. A range of activities were available to people based on their interests and preferences.
We observed kind and caring interactions from all staff. Relatives and a care manager also provided very positive feedback about the staff.
Person centred care plans were in place which detailed people's individual needs. Care plans were up to date and evaluated monthly. Care plan review records were detailed.
A complaints procedure was in place although there had been no formal complaints since the previous inspection.
Systems to improve the monitoring of the quality and safety of the service had been improved. Staff spoke highly of the manager and morale appeared good amongst staff. The manager worked closely with people and staff which enabled her to monitor the service on a daily basis.
Statutory notifications were submitted by the registered manager in line with legal requirements.
Scottlyn is a care home situated in Widdrington Northumberland that provides accommodation, care and support for up to eight people with learning and physical disabilities, and personal care needs. There were eight people living at the service at the time of our inspection.
This inspection was carried out on the 22 and 23 December 2014 and it was unannounced.
The home has a registered manager who has also worked for a predecessor organisation prior to this provider registering with the Care Quality Commission in July 2014. 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 were not able to converse with all of the people who lived at the home, but those people that we could speak with told us they felt safe. People’s relatives said they had not seen anything when visiting the service to give them cause for concern. There were systems in place to protect people from abuse and channels through which staff could raise concerns. We found two safeguarding incidents that occurred within the 12 months prior to our inspection had been handled appropriately, and referred on to the local authority safeguarding team for investigation.
A process was in place to assess people’s needs and the risks they were exposed to in their daily lives. Care records were regularly reviewed and medicines were managed and administered safely. Recruitment processes were thorough and included checks to ensure that staff employed were of good character and appropriately skilled. Staffing levels were determined by people’s needs. Staff records showed they received regular training and that training was up to date. Supervisions for staff were conducted and the RM informed us that the provider had not yet conducted appraisals having only taken over ownership of the business in recent months. Staff confirmed they could feedback their views at any time to the registered manager directly, via supervisions or staff meetings when they took place.
CQC monitors the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are part of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). They are a legal process which safeguards people to ensure they are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. People’s ability to make informed decisions had been assessed, and the ‘best interest’ decision process (part of the Mental Capacty Act 2005) was followed in practice and appropriately documented within people’s care records.
People told us, and records confirmed that their general healthcare needs were met. We saw people’s general practitioners were contacted where there were concerns about their welfare and other healthcare professionals were also involved in their care such as specialist behavioural teams when necessary. We saw that people’s nutritional needs were being met and specialist advice was sought and implemented where necessary.
Our observations confirmed people experienced care and treatment that protected and promoted their privacy and dignity. Staff displayed caring and compassionate attitudes towards people and people and their relatives spoke positively about the staff team. People had individualised care plans and risk assessments and staff were very aware of people’s individual needs. Social activities took place within the home and we saw people enjoyed trips out into the community.
We received positive feedback about the leadership and management of the home from people, their relatives and staff. Systems were in place to monitor the service provided and care delivered. However, some audits had not been completed for several months prior to our inspection and staff meetings and residents meetings had not taken place for several months. Health and safety checks were carried out on the premises and on equipment used during care delivery, but we found some of these checks, such as fire safety checks had lapsed in recent weeks. We also found that the management of legionella bacteria risks was not appropriate. The provider had not taken the necessary steps to identify, assess and manage risks associated to the health, welfare and safety of service users and others who may be at risk from carrying on the regulated activity.
This is a breach of Regulation 10 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which corresponds with a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The action we have asked the provider to take in respect of this can be found at the back of this report.
The provider had not notified us of all of the relevant matters that they are required to, in line with Regulation 18 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. We are dealing with this matter outside of this inspection process.