• Care Home
  • Care home

Foxglove Care Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

96-98 Church Street, Sutton, Hull, Humberside, HU7 4TD (01482) 826937

Provided and run by:
Foxglove Care Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Foxglove Care Limited 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 Foxglove Care Limited, you can give feedback on this service.

7 November 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

About the service

Foxglove Care Limited, is a small residential care home and is close to local shops and amenities. The service is registered to provide support to adults who may be living with a learning disability or autism spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to 4 people. One person was a permanent resident and 3 people were receiving respite care. The service can support up to 4 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Right Support:

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported by staff to pursue their interests. People were able to personalise their rooms and staff enable people to access specialist health and social care support in the community. Staff focused on people’s strengths and promoted what they could do, so people had a fulfilling and meaningful everyday life.

Right Care:

People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people’s privacy and dignity. They understood and responded to their individual needs. Staff understood how to protect people from poor care and abuse. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it. People could communicate with staff and understood information given to them because staff supported them consistently and understood their individual communication needs. People’s care, treatment and support plans reflected their range of needs, and this promoted their well-being and enjoyment of life.

Right Culture:

Staff knew and understood people well and were responsive, supporting their aspirations to live a quality of life of their choosing. Staff placed people’s wishes at the heart of everything they did, and ensured the risks of a closed culture were minimised so that people received support based on transparency, respect, and inclusivity. Relatives gave positive feedback about staff and told us they were happy with the service Foxglove Care provided.

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 6 October 2017).

Why we inspected

We received concerns in relation to the environment of the building. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern. The provider had taken action to mitigate the risks and was already compliant in areas we had previously identified. Please see the safe and well-led sections of this full report.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Foxglove Care Limited - 96-98 Church Street, on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

24 August 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection of Foxglove Care Limited took place on 24 and 29 August 2017 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in July 2015 the service met all of the regulations we assessed under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At that inspection the service was rated ‘Good’.

At this inspection the service remained ‘Good’.

Foxglove Care Limited at 96-98 Church Street, Sutton is a typical farm house style building in a residential area to the north of Kingston-Upon-Hull and is owned by Foxglove Care Limited. It is registered to provide accommodation for up to three people who may have a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. It has three bedrooms, a lounge, a dining area and a kitchen. The service is located close to local shops and amenities and there is easy access to public transport. At the time of this inspection there were three people using the service.

The provider is required to have a registered manager in post. On the day of the inspection there was a registered manager. However, they had been absent for a period of time and so the service was being managed by an acting manager, but this was soon to be resolved. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 from the risk of harm because there were systems in place, staff were trained in and understood their responsibilities for managing safeguarding concerns. Risks were reduced so that people avoided harm.

The premises were safely maintained. Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s needs. Safe recruitment systems ensured staff were suitable to support people. The management of medicines was safe.

Staff were qualified and competent. They were regularly supervised and their personal performance was checked at an annual appraisal. Communication was effective.

People’s mental capacity was appropriately assessed and their rights were protected. 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.

People were supported with nutrition and hydration to maintain their health and wellbeing. The premises were suitably designed and furnished for providing care and support to people with a learning disability.

People were compassionately cared for by kind staff that knew about people’s needs and preferences. Relatives were fully involved in their family member's care and people were asked for their consent before staff undertook support tasks. People’s wellbeing, privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Person-centred care plans reflected people’s needs and were regularly reviewed. Pastimes and activities were encouraged and people developed their living skills with support from staff. People had very good family connections and support networks. An effective complaint system was used and complaints were investigated without bias. People and their friends and relatives were encouraged to maintain relationships of their choosing.

The service was well-led and people had the benefit of a friendly culture and a positive management style. Systems were in place for checking the quality of the service. People made their views known through their own methods of communication. People’s privacy and confidentiality were maintained as records were held securely in the premises.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

10 and 14 July 2015

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 10 and 14 July 2015. At the last inspection on 12 September 2013, the registered provider was compliant with all the regulations we assessed.

Foxglove Care Limited, 96-98, Church Street, Sutton is a period property in a residential area and is owned by Foxglove Care Limited. It is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to three people who have autism or learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were two people living in the home.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post at Foxglove Care Limited. We found the previous registered manager left their post suddenly in June 2015. 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.

The people who lived at the home had complex needs which meant they could not tell us their experiences. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of the people who used the service including the Short Observational Framework for Inspection [SOFI]. SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not talk with us.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff had completed relevant training and understood their responsibilities to report episodes of poor care or neglectful practices. When accidents or incidents took place they were investigated appropriately, lessons learned were shared with staff, care plans and risk assessments were updated to prevent future re-occurrence.

Staff were recruited safely following the registered provider’s recruitment policy. Staff were deployed in sufficient numbers to meet the assessed needs of the people who used the service. Staff completed relevant training and received on-going support which enabled them to meet to provide effective care in line with people’s preferences.

People’s nutritional needs were met. Staff monitored people’s food and fluid intake and took action when there were any concerns. People were encouraged to be involved with meal choices and assisted staff to prepare meals when possible.

People who used the service were supported to make decisions and choices in their daily lives. Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when there were concerns people lacked the capacity to make informed decision themselves. Care files, support plans, patient passports, stakeholder surveys, complaints procedures and the registered providers welcome pack were produced in an easy read format which helped to make them more accessible to the people who used the service.

A quality monitoring system was in place which consisted of audits, daily checks, director assessments and stakeholder surveys. We saw that when shortfalls were identified; action was taken to improve the service as required.

12 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We looked at records that showed people had attended monthly meetings to discuss their care using communication methods that they understood. This ensured that informed consent had taken place and was recorded in people's support plans.

We were told that there was a choice of meals for people to choose from at each meal time. The manager told us, 'People can choose their own food to eat and when they would like to eat it. However, we do have to consider people that are on a healthy balanced diet such as a high fibre diet.'

We saw records of when a person's medication was adjusted to support their well-being and records showed that staff had consulted with a GP and were advised accordingly. Staff had recorded supporting information from the GP in the format of a diary entry which ensured people were supported to take the correct amounts as prescribed.

During our visit we observed a staff induction session taking place. There were seven new starters and the manager explained that all new staff would be expected to complete a full five day programme. This ensured that all new staff received a consistent approach to induction that followed the common inductions standards skills for care.

We looked at an example of a recent complaint that had been expressed by a family member. The service had responded as appropriate and were awaiting a final response which ensured the complaint was dealt with in a timely manner.

23 November 2012

During a routine inspection

People who lived in the home had complex needs and we were unable to verbally communicate with them about their views and experiences. However, we observed the interactions between them and the staff working there and saw that these were respectful and appropriate. Staff recognised specific support needs required and risk assessed the needs of people who use the service and record these in the person's care and activity plan.

People's likes and dislikes were recorded and respected, with people being supported to make decisions in their lives. Records reflected that people had good access to a range of health care professionals. People were supported by staff who had been recruited through a formal process that included a review by a relative of the person who used the service to ensure that they were suitable for the role.

The staff had a detailed training plan that indicated the essential training required to fulfil their role in an efficient and effective manner. Members of staff we talked with commented; "We pretty much are doing what we are employed to do." and, "I have never worked for an organisation that is more organised than this one."