You are here

Archived: 4 Piggy Lane Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 12 April 2017

We inspected 4 Piggy Lane on 3 March 2017. 4 Piggy Lane is a service providing a home for people with profound learning and or physical disabilities. The service is located in two bungalows. Each can provide accommodation, care and support for five people. At the time of the inspection there were five people living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs and preferences of the people who lived in the service. Staff had been recruited safely to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff understood their duty to report any concerns should they suspect abuse

Risks to people had been identified and clear plans and guidelines were in place to manage these risks without restricting people's freedom.

People's medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed.

Staff understood how people consented to the care they provided and encouraged people to make decisions about their lives. Care plans and practice reflected the framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been applied for when people needed to live in the home and to be cared for safely but did not have the mental capacity to consent to this.

People were provided with food and drink that suited their preferences and there were systems in place to ensure people had enough to eat and drink. When people needed particular diets or support to eat and drink safely, these were in place.

People had access to healthcare when they needed it and recommendations from healthcare professionals were followed.

People were offered choices regarding their day-to-day lives and were supported to participate in different activities. Staff knew how to communicate effectively with each individual according to their needs. People were relaxed and comfortable in the company of staff. Staff supported people in a way which was kind, caring, and respectful.

People were supported to access meaningful activities to meet their differing needs and interests. People's support plans provided information about the activities people enjoyed.

People and their relatives were encouraged to provide feedback on the quality of the service provided and staff acted on those comments. People and their relatives were provided with information on how they could make a complaint and how their complaint would be managed by staff.

The registered manager informed the Care Quality Commission of notifiable incidents, which occurred at the service. The provider had systems in place that monitored, and reviewed the service to improve the quality of care to people. Improvement plans were developed, and staff implemented any changes to the service to ensure people received effective quality of care.

Inspection areas



Updated 12 April 2017

The service was safe.

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse and staff knew about their responsibility to protect people.

Risks to people’s health and wellbeing had been assessed and appropriate measures were taken to ensure staff supported people safely.

People received medicines safely.



Updated 12 April 2017

The service was effective.

The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff promoted and respected people’s choices and decisions.

People were assisted to eat and drink. Staff were aware of people's specific nutritional needs.

People had access to healthcare professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment.



Updated 12 April 2017

The service was caring.

Staff were compassionate towards people and attentive to their needs.

People received the care and support they needed and were treated with dignity and respect.

People were given information about the service in ways they could understand.



Updated 12 April 2017

The service was responsive.

Support plans reflected people's individual needs and preferences.

People had access to a range of activities and were also encouraged to try new experiences.

The complaints procedure was explained in detail and available to people and their relatives.



Updated 12 April 2017

The service was well-led.

There was an open and caring culture throughout the home. Staff understood the provider's values and practised them in the delivery of people's care.

The registered manager was praised by staff. Staff told us they were able to approach the manager to raise their concerns and felt they were provided with good leadership.

Systems were in place to ensure that the quality of the service was continually assessed and monitored.