We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sherburn 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 Sherburn House, you can give feedback on this service.
Sherburn House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 12 people who have a learning disability and/or autism. At the time of our inspection, 11 people were using the service.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures 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 received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.
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.
The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 12 people. Eleven people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the local residential area and operating as two small wings.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service delivered safe care and made sure risks to people’s health and safety were managed well. People’s relatives told us they had every confidence in the management team and staff and their family members were ‘in safe hands’. Staff knew their responsibilities in relation to keeping people safe from the risk of abuse. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were managed so people received their medicines as prescribed.
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. Staff understood how people communicated their wishes and preferences. Staff supported people to maintain a balanced diet and monitor their nutritional health. They had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. They felt supported and received supervision and appraisals of their performance.
Staff were patient, friendly and kind, and people's privacy and dignity were respected. Staff showed they valued people as individuals and had formed supportive relationships with people. They knew how people preferred their care and support to be provided.
People had up to date support plans, which clearly set out how their care and support needs should be met by staff. These were reviewed regularly with the involvement of people’s relatives. We saw people's rights were respected. People chose to pursue a variety of activities and interests at the service and in their local community. People’s relatives knew how to complain and felt confident any concerns would be listened to and responded to by the registered manager.
There was a positive leadership in the service. The service was well led by a management team who led by example and had embedded an open and honest culture. Audits and checks were carried out to monitor the quality of care delivered. The registered manager was aware of their responsibility to report events that occurred within the service to the Care Quality Commission and external agencies.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good. (published 28 June 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 our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The service registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 29 January 2016 and this was the first inspection since registration.
Sherburn House is registered to offer accommodation and residential support for up to 12 people over the age of 18, who have a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of this inspection there were 10 people using the service.
The registered provider is required to have a registered manager, but at the time of our inspection the manager in post was not registered with the Commission. For this report we have referred to this person as ‘the acting manager’ throughout the text. 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 found that the care staff had a good knowledge of how to keep people safe from harm and the staff had been employed following robust recruitment and selection processes. We found that the administration of medication was safely carried out, but some aspects of recording practices, for example, 'as and when required' (PRN) medicine protocols and topical medicine charts (for external medicines) could be better.
People had their health and social care needs assessed and plans of care were developed to guide staff in how to support people. The plans of care were individualised to include preferences, likes and dislikes. People who used the service received additional care and treatment from health professionals based in the community. People had risk assessments in their care files to help minimise risks whilst still supporting people to make choices and decisions.
People that used the service were cared for and supported by qualified and competent staff that were regularly supervised and received appraisal regarding their personal performance. Communication was effective, people’s mental capacity was appropriately assessed and their rights were protected.
People received adequate nutrition and hydration to maintain their levels of health and wellbeing. However, the quality of recording of food and fluids consumed on a daily basis needed to improve.
People were able to see their families as they wanted. There were no restrictions on when people could visit the service. We saw that staff were caring and people were happy with the care they received. People had access to community facilities and most participated in the activities provided in the service.
We observed good interactions between people who lived in the service and staff on the day of the inspection. We found that people received compassionate care from kind staff and staff knew about people’s needs and preferences. People were supplied with the information they needed at the right time, were involved in all aspects of their care and were always asked for their consent before staff undertook support tasks.
People’s comments and complaints were responded to appropriately and there were systems in place to seek feedback from people and their relatives about the service provided. We saw that the acting manager met with people on a regular basis to discuss their care and any concerns they might have. This meant people were consulted about their care and treatment and were able to make their own choices and decisions.
People’s wellbeing, privacy, dignity and independence were monitored and respected and staff worked to maintain these wherever possible.
The staff and one relative told us that the service was well managed. The registered provider and acting manager monitored the quality of the service, supported the members of staff and ensured that there were effective communication and response systems in place for people who used the service.