Archived: The New Barn

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People who used the service told us that they were happy living at the home and that the staff were nice and they felt safe. A number of people who used the service lacked capacity to tell us about their experience about the care and treatment they had received. However, we saw that people were free to walk around their home. Where supervision was needed by staff to ensure their safety, this was provided.

People were provided with support to live a lifestyle of their choice and to access leisure services within their community. We saw that risk assessments were in place to ensure their safety whilst doing so.

Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people living in the home were protected from avoidable harm, abuse and breaches of their human rights.

Is the service effective?

People told us that staff did ask for their consent before they were provided with support. One care staff told us that regular keyworker meetings were carried out to discuss the individual's care needs. This was also confirmed by two people who used the service. This meant that people were actively involved in their care planning.

A number of people who used the service lacked capacity, due to their learning disability to consent to their care and treatment. The operation manager confirmed that where necessary a best interest meeting would be carried out. We saw that a record of these meetings was maintained. This ensured that any decisions made about the person's care and treatment was in their best interest.

People told us that the meals provided were nice. We saw that staff had access to information about people's nutritional needs. Staff demonstrated a good understanding about the support people required to eat and drink sufficient amounts. Discussions with the operation manager and the records we looked at showed that a number of people had swallowing difficulties. These people had access to a speech and language therapist (SALT). Access to SALT provided people and staff with information about foods to avoid. This meant that people received a balanced and nutritious diet that met their individual needs.

Is the service caring?

Two people who used the service told us that staff did respect their privacy and supported them to live their life as they wished. For example, one person told us that they were supported to access the local college to learn new skills. Another person told us about their interest in craft work and they were provided with the materials to do this. One person told us that they enjoyed reading and that staff assisted them to access to local library.

Staff took the time to find out people's personal social histories and this was recorded in their care plan. The staff we spoke with had a good understanding about people's care needs and how to support them. This meant that staff cared about the person as an individual.

Is the service responsive?

Discussions with the operation manager and the records we looked at showed that people had access to other healthcare services. However, there were no systems in place to ensure that people had access to these services in a timely manner. For example, we saw that arrangements had not been put in place to ensure a person attended a follow up dental appointment. This meant that people may not receive treatment in order to maintain optimum health.

Is the service well-led?

There was no registered manager in place. The home was managed by two operation managers. The operation manager confirmed that the manager's post had been advertised. The appointment of a manager would ensure that the provider met their condition of registration.

The people we spoke with told us that staff did ask them if they were happy living at the home and whether they had any problems. Two people confirmed that regular meetings were carried out with their key worker. This ensured that people's specific needs were met.

The operation manager said that meetings were carried out with people who used the service. This was also confirmed by two people we spoke with. Access to these meetings ensured that people had a say in the way the home was run.

Quality audits were in place to ensure people received an effective service. For example, an audit for the management of medicines and to ensure the environment was safe. However, these audits were not entirely robust. For example, we found that restrictors were not fitted to all windows on the first floor to ensure people's safety. The operation manager assured us that these audits would be reviewed and that action would be taken to fit restrictors to the windows.

People told us that they felt able to raise any issues with the manager or staff should they have any concerns. Staff spoke of their awareness of how to keep people safe from harm. Staff told us about the training that the home had arranged for them to attend so that they would recognise abuse and how to report it.

People told us that staff were always available when they needed help. They said that the staff were friendly and always acted professionally. One person said, 'The staff are excellent'.

The provider had not developed a system whereby they can fully monitor how well the home is meeting the needs of the people who live there.