You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 September 2018

This inspection took place on 7 August 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice of the visit, because it was a small service and we needed to be sure people would be in. This was our first inspection of The Vicarage.

The Vicarage is a ‘care home’. 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 can support up to four people who may be living with a learning disability or have autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection one person was living at the service who had moved in shortly before our inspection.

The service has a central location near Selby Abbey and is close to local amenities. The service is based over three floors and has two large lounges and a kitchen for people to use as they wish. Three of the four bedrooms have ensuite facilities.

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.

There was a registered manager in post however they were unavailable at the time of our inspection. We were assisted by the provider, who was also involved in providing support. 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 recruitment of staff was not consistently in line with the provider’s policy. Comprehensive work histories had not been provided to explore any gaps in employment and references were not sought from the person’s most recent or current employer. DBS checks were in place to ensure people were safe to work with potentially vulnerable people.

We requested the provider address some points to ensure the safety of the building. This included assessing the risks around windows and checking window restrictors to ensure they were in safe working order and tamper proof. Other safety checks were all completed.

No medicines support was provided at the time of our inspection. A medicines policy was in place which required updating to ensure it contained all essential information.

People told us the service was safe. There was a small consistent staff team. For areas of potential risk, risk assessments were completed which described actions for staff to take to mitigate these. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood potential signs of abuse and how to report these to. There had been no accidents or incidents since the service opened. The provider understood their responsibility to report these and a policy was in place.

The provider and staff understood the principles of the MCA and promoted these in the way they supported people. People had access to healthcare professionals and staff worked closely with them. Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and supported people with their diet. Staff received appropriate training and support to enable them to competently carry out their role.

People told us the staff were kind and caring. Staff promoted people’s independence in how they provided support and understood people had a right to privacy and for their dignity to be maintained. We observed positive and relaxed interactions between staff and the person who used the service.

Comprehensive assessments, care plans and reviews were completed which were person-centred. The staff supported the person to engage in activities of their choosing. No formal complaints had been received since the service o

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 25 September 2018

Recruitment checks were not consistently in line with the provider's policy.

Some actions were required to ensure the safety of the building.

People were supported by a consistent staff team.

Staff understood their responsibility to safeguard potentially vulnerable people.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 September 2018

The provider understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.

Staff sought people's consent.

Staff received training and support.

People told us staff had the right skills and knowledge for their role.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 September 2018

People told us the staff were kind and treated people with dignity and respect.

We observed positive interactions between staff and the person who used the service.

Staff promoted people's independence, privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 September 2018

People received person-centred support.

Care plans were comprehensive and guided staff on the support required.

People received support to engage in activities of their choosing.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 September 2018

The provider was described as knowledgeable and approachable.

The provider wanted to be provide high quality person-centred care and took actions to address the points we raised.

There were a series of informal quality assurance checks.