We carried out a review of the data available to us about Walnuts Care 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 Walnuts Care, you can give feedback on this service.
At this announced inspection on 9 May 2018 we found the service remained Good in Safe, Effective and Responsive. The service had progressed to Outstanding in Caring and Well-led giving it an overall rating of Outstanding.
Walnuts Care provides a range of support services for families and young people living with Autism. Services include respite care, support with social activities and daily living skills. At the time of our visit there were 70 people using the service. Walnuts Care Ltd. (WCL) was set-up in association with The Walnuts School, a community, residential Special School in Milton Keynes for young people on the Autistic Spectrum, to provide care and support for younger adults once they leave school, in addition to respite for children.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
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.
People and relatives told us that they were supported by very kind, caring and compassionate staff that often went the extra mile to provide them with exceptional care. People were at the heart of the service, which was organised to suit their individual needs and aspirations. There were exceptional relationships between people, their families and members of staff. Relatives told us about the positive impact the service had on their lives and how things had changed for the better. Each person was treated as an individual and as a result, their care was tailored to meet their exact needs. People were supported to use a range of personalised communication methods and staff ensured communication was not a barrier to people achieving their goals and aspirations. Staff and relatives told us that people were supported to use their individual communication methods and tools to help reduce anxiety and have greater control about their care and lifestyle.
There was an extremely positive culture within the service and the management team provided strong leadership and led by example. The registered manager and the operational manager had clear visions, values and enthusiasm about how they wished the service to be provided and these values were shared with the whole staff team. Staff had clearly adopted the same ethos and enthusiasm and this showed in the way they spoke about people. Individualised care was central to the service's philosophy and staff demonstrated they understood and practiced this by talking to us about how they met people's care and support needs.
People continued to receive safe care. Staff had been provided with safeguarding training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and how to report them. There were risk management plans in place to protect and promote people’s safety. Staffing numbers were appropriate to keep people safe and the registered provider followed thorough recruitment procedures to ensure staff employed were suitable for their role. There were systems in place to ensure people were protected from the spread of infections. People’s medicines were managed safely and in line with best practice guidelines. If any accidents or incidents occurred lessons were learnt and action taken to reduce risk in future.
People’s needs and choices were assessed and their care provided in line with best practice that met their diverse needs. There were sufficient numbers of staff, with the correct skill mix to support people with their care. Staff received an induction process when they first commenced work at the service and in addition received on-going training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people.
People received enough to eat and drink and staff gave support when required. People were supported to access health appointments when required to make sure they received continuing healthcare that met their needs. 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.
Care plans provided staff with detailed information and guidance about people's likes, dislikes, preferences and guidance from any professionals involved in their care. People and their relatives were involved in planning all aspects of their care and support and were able to make changes to how their care was provided. Records were regularly reviewed to ensure care met people's current needs. This helped to provide staff with up to date information about how each person’s support was to be delivered.
People, relatives and staff knew how to raise concerns and make a complaint if they needed to and there was a complaints procedure in place to enable people to raise complaints about the service.
The management and leadership within the service had a clear structure and the management team were knowledgeable about people's needs and key issues and challenges within the service. Staff felt supported and valued. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the care provided and to ensure the values, aims and objectives of the service were met. The registered provider was aware of their responsibility to report events that occurred within the service to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and external agencies.
Walnuts Care provides a range of support services for families and young people living with Autism. Services include overnight respite care, support with social activities and daily living skills. At the time of our visit there were 70 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.
Relatives told us their family members were safe and they had no concerns about the arrangements that were in place to keep people safe. Staff described to us their understanding of how to protect people from harm and abuse and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns. They had built good relationships with people and that enabled them to recognise any concerns about their safety. Relatives and staff were involved in compiling risk assessments and the service supported people to maintain their independence and take managed risks.
Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required at the times they needed it. The service responded flexibly and robustly to ensure suitable staffing arrangements were available to meet people’s needs. The recruitment practices were thorough and protected people from being cared for by staff that were unsuitable to work at the service.
There were systems in place so that people could be supported to take their medicines safely and as prescribed.
Staff received regular training which provided them with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs in a person centred manner. They were well supported by the registered manager and senior management team in respect of supervision and informal support. Specialist training was provided to staff that was specific to the people they were providing care for. This provided staff with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs in an effective and individualised way.
People’s consent to care and treatment was sought in line with current legislation. All staff and management were trained in the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and were knowledgeable about the requirements of the legislation.
People could access suitable amounts of nutritious food that they enjoyed and which met their individual preferences and dietary needs. Referrals to other health and social care professionals were made when appropriate to maintain people’s health and well-being.
People were at the heart of the service, which was organised to suit their individual needs and aspirations. There were exceptional relationships between people, their families and members of staff. Relatives told us about the positive impact the service had on their lives and how things had changed for the better. People were empowered to make their own decisions and to take responsibility for them. Throughout the inspection relatives and staff were keen to tell us about people’s achievements. We were provided with numerous examples of how staff had considered ways of helping people achieve their goals and aspirations. This contributed to the high levels of satisfaction expressed about the service. Relatives told us that the privacy and dignity of people was promoted by staff and they treated people and families with respect.
There was an extremely positive culture within the service and the management team provided strong leadership and led by example. The registered manager and the operational manager had clear visions, values and enthusiasm about how they wished the service to be provided and these values were shared with the whole staff team. Staff had clearly adopted the same ethos and enthusiasm and this showed in the way they cared for people. Individualised care was central to the services philosophy and staff demonstrated they understood and practiced this by talking to us about how they met people’s care and support needs. They spoke with commitment and used words like, “individual”, and “personalise”, when they talked about people they supported. People were supported to use a range of personalised communication methods and staff ensured communication was not a barrier to people achieving their goals and aspirations. Staff and relatives told us that people were supported to use their individual communication methods and tools to help reduce anxiety and have greater control about their care and lifestyle.
Staff were aware of the importance of managing complaints promptly and in line with the provider’s policy. Staff and relatives were confident that issues would be addressed and that if they had any concerns they would be listened to.
The service was well led and relatives and staff commented on the strong leadership qualities and caring approach of the registered manager and the operational manager. Relatives had enormous confidence in the service and the way it was run. There were systems in place to check that the
care of people was effective, the staffing levels sufficient, and staff appropriately trained so they had the skills to provide safe care and support. The culture within the service was positive; staff were motivated and committed to their work. They strived to give people positive care experiences and worked hard to ensure that people had ample opportunities to achieve their goals.