We carried out a review of the data available to us about Comprigney Vean 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 Comprigney Vean, you can give feedback on this service.
Comprigney Vean is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Comprigney Vean is a large detached bungalow and is registered to accommodate two people. At the time of the inspection one person was living at the service. It is part of Green Light PBS Limited, an organisation providing support and care for people with autism living in Cornwall.
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.
We met the person living at Comprigney Vean and spent some time talking with them and staff. Staff were respectful and caring in their approach. They knew the person well and had an understanding of their needs and preferences. Staff shared similar interests to the person and were able to support them to take part in a range of meaningful activities.
Identified risks to the person’s safety and well-being were clearly identified and well managed. Staff used risk assessments to enable the person to take part in activities which could be perceived as high risk such as surfing and climbing. Staff were confident about providing support at any time including any period when the person was distressed.
Staff were supported through a system of induction, training, supervision and staff meetings. This meant they developed the necessary skills to carry out their roles. There were opportunities for staff to raise any concerns or ideas about how the service could be developed.
Sequence strips using pictures to indicate the next task or activity, social stories and easy read information were used to support effective communication. The care plan identified the person’s communication needs and this was shared with other agencies when necessary.
Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act and associated Deprivation of Liberty safeguards. Any restrictive practices in place to keep people safe were regularly reviewed to ensure they remained the least restrictive option. The person living at Comprigney Vean was supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.
The registered manager took an active role within the home. Staff told us they were approachable and available for advice and support. There were clear lines of accountability and responsibility within the staff team.
There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the standards of the care provided. Audits were carried out regularly both within the service and at organisational level.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Comprigney Vean provides accommodation for up to two people with complex needs. The service uses a large detached bungalow. There was also a garden for people’s use. There was one person living at the service at the time of our inspection.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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.
This was an unannounced inspection, carried out on 3 October 2015.
Due to the person’s communication needs we were unable to gain their views verbally from them on their service. We therefore observed staff interactions and spoke with relatives and professionals involved in decisions about the care and support of the person. We observed the person was relaxed, engaged in their choice of activities and appeared to be happy and well supported by the service. We walked around the service and saw it was comfortable and personalised to reflect the person’s individual tastes. The person was treated with kindness, compassion and respect.
Staff demonstrated they had an excellent knowledge of the person they supported and were able to appropriately support them. Staff consistently spent time speaking and interacting with the person they were supporting. The use of communication tools included a sequencing tool to help structure the day’s activities and this was consistently used. We saw many positive interactions during the inspection. Staff told us they enjoyed working at Comprigney Vean and clearly worked well as a team.
Staff were trained and competent to provide the support required. Staff were well supported through a system of induction and training. They told us training was thorough and gave them confidence to carry out their role effectively. Staff were supportive of each other and worked together to support the person effectively. Staffing levels met the present care needs of the person who lived at the service.
Where the person did not have the capacity to make certain decisions, the service acted in accordance with legal requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. There was a choice of meals, snacks and drinks which the person had been involved in choosing. Staff supported the person using food option photographs and other communication tools to plan their own menus and their feedback about the meals in the service had been listened to and acted on.
Visitors told us they were always made welcome and were able to visit at any time. Relatives of the person who used the service expressed their satisfaction about the quality of care and support provided.
There was a clear and supported process to help people to raise complaints and there were regular feedback opportunities for the person and their family to discuss how they felt about the service. The service used a key-worker system. This provided a consistent lead staff member who checked regularly if the person was happy or wanted to raise any concerns. Relatives told us, “We do not have any concerns about (person’s name) care at Comprigney Vean”.
From discussions with relatives and documents we looked at we saw that the person’s family was included in planning and agreeing to the care provided at the service. There was an individual support plan which detailed the support needed and how this was to be provided. Senior staff reviewed plans at least monthly with input from the person who was supported.
Staff demonstrated they knew the person they were supporting and the choices they had made about their support and how they wished to live their life.
We saw evidence that comprehensive quality assurance processes were regularly undertaken to ensure the service was aware of the person's views of the service and could monitor auditing processes at the service. This ensured an open service culture that was open both to challenge and learning from issues that affected the quality of the service as they arose.