We carried out a review of the data available to us about Neptune House 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 Neptune House, you can give feedback on this service.
At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) comprehensive inspection in January 2016, this service had an overall rating of Good.
At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the 'all reports' link for Neptune House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk
Neptune House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Neptune House provides support for up to 15 people who have a learning disability and/or Autism. There were 13 people living at the service and two other people who spend part of the week at the service to give their carers respite.
There was a registered manager who was also a part owner at the home. 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.
Feedback provided by people about their experiences of the service included, “I know all the staff here. I feel safe. I talk to the manager if I have a problem”, The staff treat me kindly. It is a very nice home. The staff say that we live like a happy family here” and “I have no problems here. There is nowhere else better than this home. Sometimes I get worried and the staff help me get my worries off my mind. They talk about other things with me and that helps me”.
Staff were compassionate, kind and caring and had developed good relationships with people using the service. Staff were aware of how to respect people’s privacy and dignity. People were comfortable in the presence of staff. People were provided with the care, support and equipment they needed to stay independent.
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 support this practice. We observed staff were welcoming and friendly. Staff provided friendly, compassionate care and support. People’s health and wellbeing was supported by prompt referrals and access to medical care.
People continued to be encouraged and supported to pursue activities inside and outside of the home. Staff made people aware of what was happening in the local community, such as festivals that they may wish to attend. People were also encouraged to keep active and continue learning.
Staff had an excellent understanding of people's needs and were imaginative in the way they provided person centred care which put people at the heart of the service. They continued to find creative ways of supporting people to have a good quality of life. Leaders in the service promoted person centred values. Staff were well informed about their roles and they described in detail how they provided support to new staff so that they understood the core values and how to care for people.
Health action plans were in place and people had their physical and mental health needs regularly monitored. Regular reviews were held and people were supported to attend appointments with various health and social care professionals. This ensured they received treatment and support as required.
There were policies and a procedure in place for the safe administration of medicines. Incidents and accidents were recorded and checked by the management team to see what steps could be taken to prevent incidents happening again. There was an up to date procedure covering the actions to be taken in emergency situations.
Safe recruitment practices were consistency followed. Policies were kept updated. Staff were consistently deployed in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of the people currently living at Neptune House. People’s care was delivered safely and staff understood their responsibilities to protect people who were vulnerable. The registered manager followed the safeguarding policies of the local authority.
Training continued for all staff and included supervision and appraisal. Risks assessments continued to be updated and in place for the environment, and for each individual person who received care. The registered manager continued involving people and significant others in planning their care.
The directors of the company, the registered manager and staff continued to find ways to improve the service and remain driven by their passion for caring and supporting people. The vision and the value of the service to ‘enable people to live as they choose’ remained embedded in the service.
The registered manager continued asking people for their feedback about their experiences of care. The results consistently showed that people rated the service as ‘very good’ or ‘outstanding’. People said that they knew they could contact the registered manager at any time, and they felt confident about raising any concerns or other issues.
The provider and the registered manager consistently monitored the quality of the service and made changes to improve the service, taking account of people’s needs and views. The registered manager had provided good leadership to staff. The provider and registered manager implemented plans to improve the service.
Neptune House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for 15 people who have a learning disability and/or Autism. At the time of our inspection, there were 13 people living in the home full time and two other people who spend part of the week at the home to give their carers respite.
There was a registered manager who was also a part owner at the home. 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 were protected against the risk of abuse; they felt safe and staff recognised the signs of abuse to look out for. Staff understood their role and responsibilities to report any concerns and were confident in doing so.
The home had risk assessments in place to identify and reduce risks that may be involved when meeting people’s needs. There were risk assessments related to people’s physical and social needs and details of how the risks could be reduced. This enabled the staff to take immediate action to minimise or prevent harm to people.
There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet people’s needs, protect their safety and promote their independence. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and the lines of accountability within the home. Staff attended regular supervision, had an annual appraisal and regular team meetings.
The registered manager followed safe recruitment practices to help ensure staff were suitable for their job role at the home. Staff told us the management was approachable, very open, and supportive. Staff morale was good, and many of the staff had worked at the home for many years. Staff talked positively about their roles within the home.
We observed that staff had developed very positive relationships with people living in the home. Staff were kind and respectful, and were aware of how to respect people’s privacy and dignity. People told us that they made their own choices and decisions, which were respected by staff.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. People who had been assessed as lacking capacity to make decisions for themselves staff made sure their best interests were taken into account. Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2015 and DoLS to enable them to understand the need for referrals and their responsibilities around best interest decisions.
The systems for the management of medicines were followed by staff and people received their medicines safely. People had good access to health and social care professionals when required.
People were involved in the care planning processes. Their support needs, likes and lifestyle preferences had been written by the individual and were updated with new pictures people had found to pictorially represent their choices. Their needs were carefully considered and were reflected within the care and support plans.
People were encouraged and supported to pursue activities inside and outside of the home. Staff made people aware of what is happening in the local community, such as festivals that they may wish to attend. People were also encouraged to keep active and continue learning.
Health action plans were in place and people had their physical and mental health needs regularly monitored. Regular reviews were held and people were supported to attend appointments with various health and social care professionals. This ensured they received treatment and support as required.
Staff meetings and residents meetings took place on a regular basis. Minutes were recorded and any actions required were documented and acted on. People’s feedback was sought and used to improve the care. People knew how to make a complaint and complaints were managed in accordance with the provider’s complaints policy.
The registered manager regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care to ensure standards were met and maintained. The registered manager understood the requirements of their registration with the commission.
We looked at survey comments from relatives that included, 'X loves it there she could not be in a nicer home', 'I enjoy visiting as the atmosphere is happy, busy and very friendly', 'Neptune House is a one off. I have never visited such a friendly professional establishment' and 'We have found the staff at Neptune House to be friendly and approachable'.
We saw that people experienced safe and effective care based on detailed care plans that people developed with staff. There were risk assessments that met individual needs and provided good guidance to staff to minimise potential risks. We saw that good nutritional care was provided in a way that met people's needs and preferences.
We found that care staff were appropriately recruited, trained and supervised so that they could meet people's individual care needs. Staff told us that the manager was very supportive and approachable.
We saw that people experienced safe and effective care based on detailed care plans that people developed with staff. There were risk assessments that met individual needs and provided good guidance to staff to minimise potential risks. We saw that good nutritional care was provided in a way that met people's needs and preferences.
People using the service were protected from abuse as they were supported by a staff team who had appropriate knowledge and training on safeguarding adults. People we spoke to told us that if they had any concerns, they knew who to report them to. Staff we spoke to and records we reviewed, demonstrated that staff were suitably experienced, skilled and supported to ensure that people received care that met their needs. Staff told us that the manager was very supportive and approachable.
The provider had effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service. The provider regularly collected the views of families and they were very positive about the service. One relative wrote that the staff were 'very responsive and attentive to everyone'. All relatives felt welcomed into the home.
People said they liked living at Neptune House. They said they had visited the home before admission and been involved in discussions about the help they needed and their preferred day to day routines. People said there were different activities to do and that they could join in with activities if they wanted to. They said they were happy with the support they received, that the staff looked after them well. People said they liked the food, there was a choice of menu and that they chose where to eat. They said that the home was always kept clean and smelled fresh. People said they knew who to speak to should they have any concerns, but said they had no complaints.