You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 3 April 2020

About the service

Vermont House is registered to provide support to up to nine people and there were five people using the service at the time of our inspection. The service is larger than recommended by best practice guidance. However, we have rated this service good because they had arranged the service in a way that ensured people received person-centred care and were supported to maximise their independence, choice, control and involvement in the community.

The service was working in accordance with 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.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. The building design fitted into the residential area as there were other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

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

Timely action had not been taken by the provider to ensure people lived in a safe and well-maintained home. Following our inspection visit the provider did act and replaced fire doors to ensure the home was safe and began the renewal programme that had been developed.

People felt safe, and staff provided support that met their individual needs. Staff knew how to escalate concerns and were aware of potential risks when providing support. People received their medicines when they needed them. Staff wore gloves and aprons when needed to ensure they protected people from cross infection. Systems were in place to review incident and accidents to see if there were any lessons to learn from these.

Staff felt valued and supported in their roles and confirmed they had the training they needed to support people effectively. People’s healthcare needs were monitored and met, and staff worked in partnership with healthcare professionals. People, as much as practicably possible, had choice and control of their lives and staff were aware of how to support them in the least restrictive way and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People and relatives made positive comments about the staff that supported them, describing them as friendly and supportive.

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.

A complaints procedure was in place and people and their relatives knew how to raise concerns and felt confident these would be addressed. People, relatives and staff thought the service was managed well and told us positive changes were being made since the arrival of the new registered manager. The registered manager was described as approachable, supportive and open and transparent in the way they managed the service. Systems were in place to monitor the delivery of the service.

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 last rating for this service was good (Published 3 November 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 o

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 3 April 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 3 April 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 3 April 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 3 April 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 3 April 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.