You are here

The Old Rectory Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 21 February 2020

About the service

The Old Rectory is a residential care home providing personal care to 8 people with autism and learning disabilities at the time of the inspection.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to eight people. Eight people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance of six. However, the size of the service was not having a negative impact on people and was mitigated by the size of the home and building design fitting into the residential area.

The service was developed and designed in line with most principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This guidance ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

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

The management of the service did not have a consistent oversight of how staff spent their time or if there were shortfalls in staffing. We received conflicting feedback from the registered manager and staff about why some people were missing out on opportunities to access the community. Reviews indicated these were long-standing issues and that some people were not prioritised over others because their needs were more demanding of staff time.

Medicines were not consistently managed safely. Some areas for improvement were identified in the leadership audits, but we found other shortfalls which had not been identified.

The registered manager recognised there were areas for improvement in the quality monitoring of the service. Also, in documenting how people were being supported to achieve positive outcomes.

Most areas of the home were clean and tidy, although there were some areas which would benefit from redecoration. This was partly due to the age of the building and continual maintenance was planned. One person’s bedroom had a strong odour, due to water on their carpet. Plans to address this were only considered when we raised concerns about the smell.

People had personalised support plans in place. These reflected people’s usual routines, what was important to them and what staff needed to know to support them.

People’s involvement in decisions about their care was promoted. Some people used advocacy services. Others were independent in making decisions and some people had involvement from their family members.

There was a range of different meals and drinks available for people. We saw people choosing different lunchtime meal options. People who could make their own food were encouraged to do so.

Staff received training in a range of different areas, including equality and diversity. People’s cultural identity needs were respected and supported.

People’s privacy was respected. People had access to different communal rooms to spend their time, as well as a large garden. There was also a hall which could be used for events and activities.

The home was in a good location for community access by foot or public transport. The registered manager had developed good relationships with the local resident’s group. People from the community were invited into the garden for annual garden parties.

People were supported to have 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.

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 8 June 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspect

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 21 February 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 February 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 February 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 21 February 2020

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 21 February 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.