Background to this inspection
Updated
29 March 2019
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This comprehensive inspection took place on 24, 25 and 29 January 2019 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location was a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day. We needed to be sure that they would be in.
The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, for example, information shared with us by members of the public, statutory notifications and the Providers Information Return (PIR). Statutory notifications are information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law. A PIR is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
During the three-day inspection we spoke with two people, one relative, three staff members, a behavioural specialist, an aromatherapist, the registered manager and the operations manager. We looked at four care plans, six medicines records, the provider’s policies, complaints file, behavioural support records and other records relating to the management of the service.
After the inspection we contacted two relatives and three healthcare professionals to gather their views of the service
Updated
29 March 2019
London Care Partnership Ltd – School House is a care home for ten people with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorder. The home is a purpose-built building over three floors with people bedrooms on the first floor. At the time of the inspection there were ten people living at School House.
At our last inspection we rated the service outstanding. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of outstanding and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
.
At this inspection we found the service remained Outstanding in the key questions is the service caring, responsive and well-led. We also found the service has improved and is now rated Outstanding in safe. This was because we found the provider continued to drive improvement, particularly in relation to the service being safe.
The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
We received extremely positive feedback about the standard of care provided at School House from relative’s and a healthcare professional. We also observed staff delivering kind, caring and compassionate support throughout our three-day inspection.
People continued to be protected against the risk of avoidable harm and abuse, as the provider had devised comprehensive and robust risk management plans in conjunction with behavioural specialists. Extensive analysis of people’s behaviours and early positive interventions ensured the number of incidents had significantly decreased whilst increasing people’s quality of life.
The provider had arrangements to ensure only suitable staff were employed, and sufficient numbers of staff were deployed in School House to keep people safe.
Regular health and safety checks carried out by qualified professionals ensured the environment was safe. People continued to be protected against the risk of fire, as the provider had robust process in place. The service had an embedded culture of ensuring the risks of cross contamination were minimised, through robust infection control measures in place.
The service had effective systems in place to ensure people continued to receive their medicines safely and in-line with good practice. Robust medicines audits ensured issues identified were acted on swiftly, minimising the impact on people.
Staff continued to receive on-going training to enhance their skills and knowledge. Personalised training was available to staff to ensure people received effective support. Staff reflected on their working practice through regular one-to-one meetings with the registered manager. Goals set for the coming months were achievable and enhanced staff’s role.
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 service used imaginative ways to ensure people’s consent to care and treatment was sought prior to delivery.
People continued to be supported to maintain meaningful relationships with people that mattered to them. Relatives spoke positively about the support they received, and told us they were welcomed into the service and could visit as and when they wished.
People’s dietary needs and preferences were considered and catered for. People continued to be supported to access healthcare professional services to maintain and monitor their health and well-being. The service used imaginative ways to ensure people could access these services safely.
The service continued to support people’s religious and cultural needs in the way people wished. Staff members ensured people were treated equally and their diversity was respected and encouraged. The service continued to use imaginative ways to encourage people to develop their independence and enhance their life skills.
Relatives confirmed staff treated people exceptionally well, ensuring they were respectful, compassionate and caring. Observations throughout the three-day inspection confirmed what relatives told us. The atmosphere within the School House was warm, welcoming and inclusive.
People continued to receive exceptional care and support that was responsive to their individual needs. Care plans were person-centred, up-to-date and regularly reviewed. Assessments were regularly analysed to ensure they reflected people’s changing needs and support provided was responsive.
Ways of communicating with people were tailored to their specific needs. Innovative practices ensured people could communicate their needs and wishes in line with the accessible information standards.
The service had appropriate arrangements in place to manage and learn from complaints and concerns. Relatives confirmed they were confident the registered manager would deal with any complaints in a timely manner.
The registered manager had significant oversight of the service. Robust audits ensured all issues identified were acted on in a timely manner. People’s views were continually sought through regular questionnaires, general discussions and meetings. The registered manager placed great importance on partnership working to continually drive improvements.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.