Green Lane Farm

Green Land Farm is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 5 people with a learning disability and or autistic people. At the time of the inspection there was 1 person living permanently at the home and 2 people accessing the respite service.

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

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 assessment and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

Right Support:

Staff supported people to take part in activities and pursue their interests in their local area. Staff supported people to make decisions following best practice in decision-making. The service worked with people to plan for when they experienced periods of distress so that their freedoms were restricted only if there was no alternative. Staff supported people with their medicines in a way that promoted their independence and achieved the best possible health outcome.

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. The service worked with people to plan for when they experienced periods of distress, so their freedoms were restricted only if there was no alternative.

Right Care:

Staff promoted equality and diversity in their support for people. They understood people’s cultural needs and provided culturally appropriate 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. The service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it. The service had enough appropriately skilled staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. People could communicate with staff and understand information given to them because staff supported them consistently and understood their individual communication needs.

Right Culture:

Staff knew and understood people well and were responsive, supporting their aspirations to live a quality life of their choosing. Staff placed people’s wishes, needs and rights at the heart of everything they did. The service enabled people and those important to them to worked with staff to develop the service. Staff valued and acted upon people’s views. Staff evaluated the quality of support provided to people, involving the person, their families and other professionals as appropriate.

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 21 November 20217).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

This report only covers our findings in relation to the key questions safe, effective and well-led. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Green Lane Farm 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.

Green Lane Farm is a detached residence used as two properties. The service supports up to five younger adults with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, mental health and sensory impairment to live as independently as they can. Most people accessing the services have complex needs associated with their diagnosis.

One area of the property is used for respite care and has four bedrooms. The other side of the property is used as a permanent residence. The property has nearly three acres of land, a stable block, kennels and hay store. In the local area there is access to a range of facilities including a pub, social centre, vegetable farm shop and an arts therapy centre.

At the time of our inspection one person was living permanently in the home and other people were regularly accessing the respite facilities.

A registered manager had been in post since the service registered with us on 9 December 2016. 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.’

Staff told us about potential signs of abuse and the many different types. They knew how to report any concerns they may have and were knowledgeable about how to report within the structure of their organisation or externally to other regulators or local authorities.

Potential risks were identified and regularly reviewed, with detailed information and guidance to support staff to carry out their role. Staff told us they felt supported and that they could approach the registered manager with any queries or concerns at any time.

The service had a robust recruitment process in place. Staff were supported through a period of induction where they were introduced to people living at the service, and familiarised with company policies and procedures. Mandatory training was completed during induction and further training identified through regular supervisions and appraisals. In addition, staff were supported by health professionals who provided specialist training and support to meet people’s changing needs.

People were supported to be involved in making daily decisions and staff used an array of different communication methods, such as picture cards and people’s own adaptations of Makaton sign language. Where people lacked capacity to make some decisions, appropriate health professionals and relatives or representatives were invited to best interest meetings.

Relatives felt that staff truly cared for their loved ones. They worked hard to provide person centred care by involving people and their relatives when planning all aspects of their care and support. Records were detailed in care plans and included peoples like and dislikes, preferences and guidance from health professionals. Any changes to people’s needs were communicated immediately to staff and documentation signed to acknowledge their awareness and understanding.

Staff spoke warmly about people living at the service and felt they had become more like part of a family. All the staff without exception told us they worked well as a team together working towards the same goal. This was to create a homely atmosphere where people could feel safe and relaxed to enjoy a fulfilling and meaningful life whilst living at the service.

Relatives and staff knew how to make a complaint if they needed to and staff told us they felt their confidentiality would be maintained should they need to use the whistle blowing procedure.

The management and leadership within the home had a clear structure and the manager was knowledgeable about people’s care and support needs. Staff told us they were proactive in their approach, in that they encouraged staff to continually develop their skills and resources for information. Feedback from relatives and staff had been facilitated regularly during meetings and one to one discussions.

The service had recently achieved the ‘Autism Accreditation’, something both the registered manager and their team of staff were proud to be a part of. This showed the dedication within the service and the knowledge and skills built amongst the staff. The service had such a unique approach, coming up with new ideas for different methods of interaction and communication. These shaped people’s individualism and continually promoted their independence.