• Care Home
  • Care home

Restormel House

Overall: Outstanding read more about inspection ratings

1A Restormel Terrace, Restormel Road, Plymouth, Devon, PL4 6BJ (01752) 267489

Provided and run by:
Achieve Together Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Restormel House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Restormel House, you can give feedback on this service.

10 September 2018

During a routine inspection

Restormel House is a residential Care Home, which provides accommodation and supports the needs of people with a learning disability and associated conditions such as autism and Asperger’s. In addition to a learning disability some people may also be living with mental health needs. The service is currently registered to accommodate and support a maximum of six people. At the time of the inspection five people were living at the 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 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.

People living at Restormel House had a range of complex care needs and required a high level of support with daily living inside and outside the home. Some people had previously lived in settings where they had been restricted from making everyday choices and others were experiencing change as they moved from being a child into adult services. Although people had capacity, some of their communication skills were limited. We met all five people during our visit and were able to observe interactions and talk to people about their daily routines and plans.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered person’s’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection on the 20 January 2016, the service was rated as good in the domains of safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led. This meant the service was rated as good overall. At this inspection we found the service remained good in safe and effective, but had improved to outstanding in caring, responsive and well led. This means that at this inspection the service is rated as Outstanding overall.

Why the service is rated outstanding.

There was a very positive culture within the service. The management team provided strong leadership and led by example. Relatives, staff and other agencies were very positive about the leadership of the service. They described the registered manager as, “Excellent”, “Supportive, always available” and “Proactive, always thinking ahead”. We observed positive and compassionate interactions between staff and the people they supported. Staff said they loved their work and were passionate about providing high standards of care. The provider really inspired staff to provide an excellent quality service. Staff had been nominated and received awards to celebrate their contribution to care and a number of aspiring leadership opportunities were available to encourage progress and development.

There was a ‘can do’ approach to working with people. The registered manager and staff recognised that people they supported were young and despite their needs wanted to experience the same opportunities as other young people their age. Risks in relation to people’s care were assessed, understood and managed well. Staff worked very hard to manage risks, whilst not restricting people’s opportunities. For example, one person wanted to attend an event to see favourite film and TV characters. Staff supported the person to consider the risks involved in this activity and to plan the event safely. The person’s involvement, staff skills and determination resulted in the person having a wonderful experience, which we were able to see had been documented for them in photographs.

People were encouraged to lead active lives and were supported to participate in community life as much as possible. Small steps had been taken to help people achieve their goal. For example, one person who had previously spent most of their time at home had been supported to go out into the community. Staff initially supported them to look online at items in a shop, then went with the person in the car several times to familiarise themselves with the route before finally going into the shop to buy what they had seen. Staff said these were often long processes, “But we aim to get there in the end”. Another person had been supported to access work opportunities and had successfully secured paid employment.

There was a strong emphasis on people being able to develop their independence and to move on from Restormel House if they chose to do so. We heard about people who had moved on from the service since the last inspection and these achievements had been documented in the homes ‘Journeys file’. Staff had supported people to plan their move, access advocacy services and organise their finances. People’s progress and achievements were recognised and celebrated.

People’s safety was paramount in the service. People were supported to understand how to keep safe. The local police diversity officer visited the service to talk to people about safety topics such as, keeping safe in the community, bullying and hate crime. A staff member had attended a training course at a local drug and alcohol service so that they could provide people with information and advice when the needed it. This included information about sexual health and relationships. They told us “We support young people who need good, clear information and support to keep them safe and healthy”.

Staff undertook regular safeguarding training and understood how and when to report any concerns about abusive or poor practice. People using the service also had access to relevant contact numbers if they wanted to report any safeguarding concerns. Safeguarding was discussed regularly within staff and resident’s meetings. Robust recruitment practices ensured staff employed in the home were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The service had a culture which recognised equality and diversity amongst the people who lived in the service and the staff team. People were not discriminated against in respect of their sexual orientation. Staff recognised that some people were exploring their sexuality and supported them sensitively and appropriately when required. Staff had supported one person in relation to their particular lifestyle choice. Staff had spent time with the person to gain a better understanding and had developed a plan with the person to help ensure appropriate support was provided. Innovative and sensitive methods had been used to protect people’s privacy at all times.

Staff were sensitive and respectful in relation to people’s religious and cultural needs. The Regard Partnership mission stated that they wanted staff to experience a ‘positive, inclusive, working environment where diversity is celebrated’. Recruitment processes and the planning of staff demonstrated that the provider and registered manager recognised the benefits of having a diverse community of staff who valued one another and the different contributions they could make.

The registered manager and staff had been creative and innovative in ensuring they responded appropriately and effectively to people’s communication needs. Care plans, risk assessments, behaviour support plans and health information had, where appropriate, been translated into pictures and symbols for the person to understand. People’s daily routines, menu’s and activity plans were also provided in a way the person could understand and use to organise their time. Easy read information had been developed covering a range of topics, which people might require access to, including, equality, diversity and human rights, confidentiality, resident’s money and sexual health issues. This helped to ensure people had access to the information they needed in a way they could understand it. The registered manager continued to explore the use of technology to assist with responding to people’s individual care needs. People either had their own computer or access to the homes computer system. We saw one person writing their weekly menu and shopping list on the home’s computer. The registered manager said this was a very important task for the individual but also allowed staff to spend valuable and positive time with them. Each person had a memory stick to allow them to access information about their support arrangements and identify any issues or changes.

Restormel House mainly supported younger adults. The atmosphere in the home reflected this younger age group with lots of laughter, jokes, music and activity. When we arrived, some people were busy getting ready for their day and others were either having a lie in or relaxing having breakfast and chatting with staff. We observed people were making choices and leading a busy and full life. People clearly saw Restormel House as their home and were empowered to treat it as such. We observed people answering the door to visitors, using the kitchen freely to prepare drinks and snacks and offering their views and feedback as we inspected the service. Staff were enthusiastic and energetic. We saw how staff were patient and respectful towards people at all times even when faced with challenging and unpredictable situations.

Personalised care was central to the homes philosophy and staff demonstrated they understood this when talking about how they met people’s individual care and support needs. People’s care records and support arrangements were highly personalised, which ensured care was tailored to meet their individual and diverse needs. The values of the service included ‘compassionate care’,’ excellence’ and ‘hard work’ with a vision to provide excellent care a

19 January 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection was unannounced and took place on the 19 and 20 January 2016. The inspection was undertaken by one adult social care inspector.

1A Restormel Terrace provides care and accommodation for up to six people. On the day of the inspection six people were living at the service. 1A Restormel provides care for adults with a learning disability and conditions such as Autism, Aspergers and other needs associated with their mental health.

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.

During the inspection people and staff were relaxed and happy. Staff had time to sit and talk to people and conversations we heard demonstrated staff knew people well and understood their needs and different personalities.

People, relatives and other agencies spoke highly of the service and the support people received. Comments included, “Staff are very passionate about the people they support”, “I think very highly of the staff team, they are really knowledgeable about people and are doing a really good job”. People confirmed staff were kind to them and they were happy living at 1A Restormel Terrace.

There was an open, transparent culture and good communication within the staff team. The registered manager was clear about the values of the service and these values were shared and understood by the staff team. Staff spoke in a compassionate and caring way about the people they supported. People were supported to fulfil their goals, wishes and aspirations and their achievements were recognised and celebrated. The registered manager said, “ We are a moving on service, we are constantly supporting people to develop their skills and be independent”

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and to keep them safe. The provider had effective recruitment and selection procedures in place and people who lived in the home were involved in this process. People told us they felt safe, and were also supported to consider ways of keeping safe when they went out of the home.

People had their medicines managed safely. People were supported to maintain good health through regular visits with healthcare professionals, such as GPs, dentists and the specialists involved in their specific healthcare needs.

People were supported to take everyday risks and to make choices about their care and lifestyle. People’s risks were known, monitored and managed well. Management and staff understood their role with regards to ensuring people’s human rights and legal rights were respected. For example, the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were understood by staff. All staff had undertaken training on safeguarding adults from abuse and displayed a good knowledge on how to report any concerns.

Staff undertook a comprehensive induction programme specific to the service and supporting people within the care setting. Staff had opportunity for a wide range of training and the training programme was relevant to the specific needs of people they supported.

Staff said they felt well supported by the management team and their colleagues. Comments included, “The manager tells us never to be afraid to ask, we are able to suggest things, think outside the box, it makes us feel valued as part of a team”.

Support plans were focused on giving people control and encouraging people to maintain as much independence as possible. People were involved in planning their care and their particular preferences were sought and documented. People’s age, life histories, disabilities and abilities were taken into account in the planning and delivery of care.

People were encouraged to lead active lives and were supported to participate in community life where possible. People were empowered to access support from a range of services and staff worked alongside these organisations to support people when required.

The registered manager took an active role within the home and led by example. There were clear lines of accountability and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The provider had robust systems in place to assess and audit the quality of the service. Learning from incidents, feedback, concerns and complaints were used to help drive continuous improvement across the service.

29 January 2014

During a routine inspection

People told us that they were treated with respect and that their consent was always sought before care was undertaken. We observed that staff asked permission before entering people's rooms and that they recognised that people had the right to go out when they chose. People told us that were free to leave the home when they wished. We saw staff supporting people to go to the shops and attend a leisure facility.

Care plans were personalised, taking into account a person's strengths and weaknesses as well as their likes and dislikes. We saw that staff supported people to be as independent as possible, helping them to shop and cook and undertake activities they enjoyed. People told us that they would sit down with their key worker or another member of staff and discuss what they wanted to do. We observed staff sitting with people discussing activities.

People told us they 'liked the home' as they could decorate their rooms according to their personal preference. We saw that the home was well maintained and that repairs were carried out when required.

We reviewed staff records which showed they were supported to do training and also received regular supervision and appraisal.

There was a complaints procedure which was accessible to the people living in the home. We talked with people who said that they knew how to make a complaint but that 'they had never made a formal complaint as we tend to talk things through and get things sorted.'

23 October 2012

During a routine inspection

At the time of our visit there were six people living at the home. We met and spoke to four of the people who used the service.

Comments from people we spoke to included;

'There are always staff available to speak to. If anything is bothering me, I can speak to staff and it will get resolved'

'Staff respect my privacy, they tell me about possible risks, but don't stop me doing things' 'Staff understand my problems and know the things I need support with'

During our visit we saw that staff treated people respectfully at all times, promoting choice and independence whenever possible. The interactions and relationships we observed helped to create a homely and age appropriate environment for people using the service.

People were supported to develop their daily living skills, and to consider options for the future. One person said 'The staff tell us about possible risks, but they don't stop us doing what we want to do.

We found that people engaged in a range of age appropriate and meaningful activities. Comments from people using the service included 'I like to go to the local shops, the staff help me when I need it'

The three staff members we spoke to were able to tell us about different types of abuse, and they knew what to do to ensure that people using the service were kept safe.

The provider regularly reviewed the quality of the service and was able to demonstrate that changes had been made as a result of any feedback.