You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 November 2018

Street Farm provides support for up to 11 people with learning disabilities. The main house accommodates up to six people and there are flats at the rear of the property for five people. At the time of the inspection there were 11 people living at Street Farm.

A registered manager was responsible for the service. This 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 registered manager was also responsible for managing one of the provider’s other homes and visited Street Farm weekly. The provider had appointed a manager oversee the day to day running of the home and report directly to the registered manager.

Street Farm 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.

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. Registering the Right Support CQC policy

The service used innovative ways to manage risk and keep people safe. Each person told us they felt “very safe” living at the home and had no concerns at all about their safety. Staff made sure people were safe.

People told us they had choice and control over their lives. They were supported to live a life of their choosing. People talked about the risks they took in their day to day lives. They saw risk as nothing unusual, just part of “everyday life.”

People engaged with services and events outside of the service. People spoke with us about the wide range of social activities, education and work opportunities, trips and holidays they chose.

Staff supported people’s independence. One person said, “I’ve been to work today. They’re very friendly staff I work with and I get on well with the customers. I’ve worked there for 18 years.” One relative had commented their family member’s chosen lifestyle and things they had achieved was, “Simply a testament to the support and guidance (name) receives from the excellent staff.”

People and their relatives felt the staff were extremely caring, compassionate, attentive and dedicated. They commended the quality of the care they received. A relative said about their family member, “It’s quite amazing to see her like this.”

Staffing levels were good and people also received good support from health and social care professionals. Staff had built close, trusting relationships with people over time. One relative said, “The atmosphere at Street Farm is excellent.”

People, and those close to them, were involved in planning and reviewing their care and support. There was a close relationship and good communication with people's relatives. People and their relatives felt their views were “always” listened to and acted on.

Staff were well supported and well trained. Staff spoke highly of the care they were able to provide to people. One staff member said, “It’s their life, their home, their choice, their rights.”

There was a management structure in the home which provided clear lines of responsibility and

accountability. All staff worked hard to provide a high level of care to people. The aims of the service were well defined and adopted by the staff team.

There were effective quality assurance processes in place to monitor care and safety and plan ongoing improvements. There were systems in place to share information and seek people's views about their care and the running of the home. One relat

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 November 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected from potential abuse and unsafe care.

People took risks which were well managed but did not affect their independence or lifestyle choices.

Recruitment procedures were safe. People�s medicines were managed safely.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet the needs and ensure their safety.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 November 2018

The service continued to be effective.

People were supported by staff who were sufficiently skilled and experienced to support them to have a good quality of life.

People's consent to care and support was sought in line with their legal rights.

People chose meals and drinks which meet their needs.

People used healthcare services to meet their health care needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 November 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were committed to providing good quality care and had a good understanding of their needs.

People and the staff knew each other well and these relationships were valued.

Staff worked closely with people to ensure they were actively involved in all decisions about their care.

Responsive

Outstanding

Updated 8 November 2018

The service was very responsive.

People's care plans had been developed with them to identify what support they required and how they would like this to be provided.

Staff had an excellent understanding of people's needs and preferences.

People participated in a wide range of work placements and activities which enabled them to develop and �move on�.

People told us they knew their comments and complaints would be listened to and acted upon.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 November 2018

The service was well-led.

There were clear lines of accountability and responsibility within the management team. The aims of the service were well defined and these were adopted by staff.

Staff worked in partnership with other professionals to make sure people received appropriate support to meet their needs.

People were part of their local community. There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.