You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 January 2019

We carried out an announced inspection of the service on 12 December 2018. Sternhill Paddock is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. This service supports people who have a learning disability.

Sternhill Paddock accommodates up to six people in one building. During our inspection there were five people living at the home. This is the service’s second inspection under its current registration. The service was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’ after the last inspection. This rating has now improved to ‘Good’.

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.

A registered manager was present during the inspection. 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.

At the last inspection on 24 July and 2 August 2017 we identified four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These were in relation to safe care and treatment, safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment, good governance and fit and proper persons employed. After this inspection we asked the provider to send us an action plan to inform us how they would make the necessary improvements to ensure they complied with the fundamental standards.

At this inspection we checked to see whether improvements in these four areas had been made and found they had.

People were now supported by staff in a way that protected them from avoidable harm and abuse. Risks to people’s safety were now appropriately assessed and acted on. There were enough staff in place to support people and to keep them safe. Robust recruitment procedures were now in place that ensured the risk of people being supported by unsuitable staff was reduced. People’s medicines were managed safely. The home was clean and tidy and staff understood how to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. Accidents and incidents were now regularly reviewed, assessed and investigated by the registered manager and the provider’s senior management team.

People received care and support in line with their assessed needs and in accordance with current legislation and best practice guidelines. Staff were well trained, received regular supervision of their role and were encouraged to develop their careers through the completion of nationally recognised qualifications. People were supported effectively with their meals and contributed to choosing the menus. People had access to support from external health and social care agencies. The home environment was well maintained and adapted to support people with a learning and/or physical disability. 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 support this practice.

People liked the staff and we saw clear examples of warm, positive, kind and caring interactions. Staff supported people with dignity, respect and compassion. People were supported by staff who understood their needs and supported them with making decisions about their care. People’s diverse needs were respected. People were provided with information about how they could access independent advocates. There were no restrictions on people’s friends or relative

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 January 2019

The service was safe.

People were protected from avoidable harm. Risks to their safety were assessed and acted on. There were enough staff to support people and staff were recruited safely. People�s medicines were managed safely. Staff understood how to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. Accidents and incidents were regularly reviewed, assessed and investigated.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 January 2019

The service was effective.

People received effective support with their health needs. Staff were well trained and their competency was assessed. People were supported to follow a balanced and healthy diet. People had access to support from external health and social care agencies. Decisions were made with or for people in line with appropriate legislation

Caring

Good

Updated 24 January 2019

The service was caring.

Staff were kind, caring and treated people with dignity and respect. People�s diverse needs were respected. People were involved with decisions about their support needs. There were no restrictions on people�s friends or relatives visiting them. People�s records were handled appropriately and in line with the General Data Protection Regulation.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 January 2019

The service was responsive.

People were cared for in line with their personal preferences. People had access to a wide range of activities. Staff communicated effectively with people. Information was provided for people in a way they could understand. Processes were in place to respond to complaints appropriately. People were supported to make decisions about their end of life care.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 January 2019

The service was well led.

The home was led by an enthusiastic registered manager who had overseen improvements to the quality of the care people received. Robust quality assurance processes were now in place. Staff felt valued and enjoyed their role. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to give their views about how the home could be improved and developed.

The provider had not returned the Provider Information Return to the CQC when requested. Due to the improvements made by the provider in all areas, this has not impacted the rating for this question.