You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 June 2018

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 23 April 2018.

Barleycombe provides care and accommodation for up to 13 people with learning disabilities. On the days of our inspection there were ten people living at the care home. In relation to Registering the Right Support we found this service was doing all the right things, ensuring choice and maximum control. Registering the Right Support (RRS) sets out CQC’s policy registration, variations to registration and inspecting services supporting people with a learning disability and/or autism.

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 service had a registered manager who was present throughout 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.

This was the first ratings inspection for this provider, Lifeways Community Care Limited since they became registered on 15 December 2016. We found that the service provided to people was good.

People were safe at the service. People were protected from abuse because staff knew what action to take if they suspected someone was being abused, mistreated or neglected. Staff were recruited safely, and checks carried out with the disclosure and barring service (DBS) ensured they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

People’s risks were assessed, monitored and managed by staff to help ensure they remained safe.

Risk assessments were in place to help support risk taking, and help reduce risks from occurring. People who had behaviour that may challenge staff or others had risk assessments in place which gave good guidance and direction to staff about how to support the person, whilst taking account of everyone’s safety. People received their medicines safely by suitably trained staff.

People were supported by staff who had received training to meet their needs effectively. Staff meetings, one to one supervision of staff practice and appraisals of performance were undertaken.

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's health was monitored by the staff and they had access to a variety of healthcare professionals. Staff worked closely with external health and social care professionals, to help ensure a coordinated approach to people’s care.

People’s care and support was based on legislation and best practice guidelines which helped to enhance wellbeing and ensure the best outcomes for people. People’s legal rights were upheld and staff sought consent to care as much as possible. Care records were person centred and held full details on how people liked to be supported; taking into account people’s preferences and wishes. Overall, people’s individual equality and diversity preferences were known and respected. Information recorded included people’s previous medical and social history and people’s cultural, religious and spiritual needs.

People were treated with kindness and compassion by the staff who valued them. The staff, some who had worked for the company for a number of years, had built strong relationships with people who lived in the home. Staff respected people’s privacy. People, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about the care and support people received.

People were able to make choices about their day to day lives. The provider had a complaints policy in place and the manager sai

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 June 2018

The service was safe.

People had detailed care plans, which included an assessment of risk. These contained sufficient detail to inform staff of risk factors and action they should take.

People were supported by trained staff who knew what action to take if they suspected abuse was taking place.

There were enough staff to support people. Safe recruitment systems were in place.

People's medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 June 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had received training and supervision to carry out their roles.

Consent to care and treatment was sought in line with legislation and guidance. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and put this into practice.

Staff protected people from the risk of poor nutrition and dehydration.

People had their health needs met and were referred to healthcare professionals promptly when needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 June 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well.

People were involved in all aspects of their care and in their care plans.

People were treated with dignity and respect by staff who communicated well.

People were encouraged to express their views and to make choices.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 June 2018

The service was responsive.

Support was flexible and responded to individual needs and enabled them to access activities of their choosing.

Regularly reviewed care plans provided detailed information to staff on people's care needs and how they wished to be supported.

The manager logged complaints and responded to them in a personalised way.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 June 2018

The service was well led.

The provider had quality monitoring processes to promote the safety and quality of the service.

People who used the service and their relatives were asked for their views to develop the service further.

There was an open, positive and supportive culture at the service and the vision and values of promoting independence were understood and put into practice.

Staff felt well supported.