Quantock House

Updated 24 February 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 28 January 2021 and was announced.

Updated 24 February 2021

This inspection took place on the 8 and 9 March 2018 and was unannounced. Quantock House 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.

The service provides accommodation for up to six people with learning disabilities in a house situated in its own grounds with an open front garden but an enclosed garden area at the back. Six people were using the service at the time of this inspection.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

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 using the service could live as ordinary a life and make the choices which were right for them.

We previously inspected the service in November 2015 and rated the service as 'Good'. At this inspection we found the service remained 'Good'.

Staff recruitment procedures were robust and included Disclosure and Barring Service checks and references. Staffing levels were appropriate to the needs of the people using the service to ensure they had access to the community and recreational activities.

One person told us the service was safe. Policies and procedures were in place to keep people safe such as safeguarding, whistleblowing, and accident and incident policies. Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to report any concerns they may have.

Medicines were managed safely by staff who were appropriately trained and the manager assessed the staff’s competencies.

Risks to people were assessed on admission and reviewed on a regular basis. Risk assessments were individualized and gave staff guidance about how to help keep people safe but the records would benefit from more detail.

People had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) in place in case of an emergency. Staff were trained in a range of subjects such as first aid, food hygiene and fire warden training. Staff had also received additional training to support them to meet the needs of people who used the service, such as specialist communication methods and epilepsy. Staff received regular supervisions and an annual appraisal.

Staff supported people to access appropriate healthcare, such as GPs and speech and language therapists. People's nutritional needs were assessed and their weight was monitored on a regular basis. The provider tried to give people a varied diet, however due people’s limited choices of meals the menus would benefit from being nutritionally assessed by a dietician.

People were encouraged to make choices in everyday decisions. Staff provided support, guidance and care in a dignified manner, showing people respect whilst ensuring privacy when necessary.

Care plans were personalised and contained clear information to cover every aspect of the person's daily needs. Personal preferences, likes and dislikes were acknowledged in care plans to ensure support was individualised to the person. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure staff had up to date

information.

People enjoyed a varied range of activities both inside and outside the home. The service had positive links with the community; with people accessing local activities and leisure centres and shops.

The provider had a complaints procedure in place which was accessible to people in a pictorial format. Relatives felt the provider responded appropriately to any concerns they raised.

The provider had a quality assurance process in place which included regular visits from senior managers. The service was audited and where necessary actions were set to develop and improve the service.

Staff felt the registered managers were open, honest and approachable. They confirmed they felt supported and were able to raise concerns.