You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 October 2018

The inspection took place on 5 September and was unannounced.

Fir Trees 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. Fir Trees House provides care for up to seven people with learning disabilities or mental health support needs. At the time of our inspection there were four people living at Fir Trees House.

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 no registered manager in post. The previous registered manager had left the service in May 2018. 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. A new manager had been appointed and supported us during the inspection. They informed us they had applied to register with the CQC and our records confirmed this was the case.

Sufficient numbers of staff were available to support people and robust recruitment processes were in place. Staff had completed safeguarding training and understood their role in protecting people from the risk of harm. Risks to people were identified and managed in a way which kept people safe whilst supporting them to take reasonable risks to promote their independence. People’s medicines were stored administered and recorded safely. Health and safety checks were completed and a contingency plan was in place to ensure people would continue to receive their support in the event of an emergency. People lived in a clean and well-maintained environment and safe infection control practices were followed.

The provider had systems in place to ensure people’s needs and compatibility to live with others were considered prior to someone moving into the service. People were supported by staff who received on-going training and supervision to support them in their role. The principles of the MCA were followed to ensure people’s rights were protected. People received support to access healthcare services. A choice of food and drinks were available to people.

People liked the staff supporting them and staff knew people well. There was a positive and relaxed atmosphere and people and staff communicated well. People's privacy and dignity was respected and people were supported to practice their religious beliefs. Visitors were made to feel welcome to the service and people were supported to maintain relationships with those who were important to them.

People and staff were involved in developing and reviewing care plans. Care plans were detailed and reflective of the support people required. However, we found that information regarding the support people wanted at the end of their life had not been discussed or incorporated into people’s care records. We have made a recommendation regarding this. People told us that staff responded to requests for support and staff understood people’s needs and personalities. People were encouraged to participate in activities both when spending time at home and within the local community. The provider had a complaints policy in place and people were aware of how to raise concerns.

People were supported by staff that understood their roles, responsibilities and the ethos of the organisation. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the care people received and people and staff were able to voice their opinions regarding the service. Records were

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 October 2018

The service was safe.

Staff had received training and demonstrated understanding of safeguarding procedures.

Risks to people�s safety were assessed and measures implemented to keep them safe.

People were supported by sufficient staff who had been recruited appropriately.

People received their medicines in line with their prescriptions.

Accidents and incidents were monitored and action taken to minimise them reoccurring.

People lived in a clean environment.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 October 2018

The service was effective.

People received support from staff who received training and supervision to support them in their role.

People were provided with choices regarding their meals and drinks.

Support to access healthcare professionals was available to people.

The principles of the MCA were followed.

People lived in an environment which was suited to their needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 October 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by caring staff who had developed positive relationships with people.

People�s religious and cultural needs were respected.

People were treated with respect and their dignity and privacy was maintained.

People were supported to maintain their independence and to keep in touch with those who were important to them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 October 2018

The service was responsive.

People's needs and preferences were understood by staff.

People and staff were involved in developing and reviewing care plans.

Details regarding people�s end of life care wishes were not known to staff or recorded. We have made a recommendation regarding this.

People were supported to follow their individual routines and to access the community.

People knew how to make a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 October 2018

The service was well-led.

There was a positive culture amongst the staff team.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.

People and staff were able to contribute to the running of the service.

The provider understood their responsibilities to submit notifications although more thorough checks regarding this were required.

Records were securely stored.