• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: The Old Rectory

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

83 High Street, Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppy, Kent, ME12 4DF (01795) 880484

Provided and run by:
Insight Specialist Behavioural Service Ltd

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile
Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile
Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

21 October 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection on the 21 October 2015, and it was unannounced.

The Old Rectory is a privately owned care home, providing personal care and accommodation for up to 10 adults with learning disabilities, some of whom may have behaviours that may harm themselves or others. There were nine people living at the service at the time of the inspection. People had complex needs, including mental health and physical health needs. It is one of a group of five care homes owned by Insight Specialist Behavioural Service Ltd. The home in situated near the amenities of Eastchurch.

Some of the people living in the service had a limited ability to verbally communicate with us or engage directly in the inspection process. People demonstrated that they were happy in their home by showing warmth to the staff that were supporting them. Staff were attentive and communicated with people in a warm and friendly manner. Staff were available throughout the day, and responded quickly to people’s requests for care and support.

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.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager and staff showed that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions the home was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests. Staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and showed they understood and promoted people’s rights through asking for people’s consent before they carried out care tasks.

Staff had been trained in how to protect people from abuse, and discussions with them confirmed that they knew the action to take in the event of any suspicion of, or actual abuse. Staff understood the whistle blowing policy and how to use it. They were confident they could raise any concerns with the registered manager or outside agencies if this was needed.

Staff were knowledgeable about the needs and requirements of people using the service. Staff involved people in planning their own care in formats that they were able to understand, for example pictorial formats. Staff supported them in making arrangements to meet their health needs.

Staff were recruited using procedures designed to protect people from the employment of unsuitable staff. Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and were supported through regular supervision and an annual appraisal so they were supported to carry out their roles.

Medicines were managed, stored, disposed of and administered safely. People received their medicines when they needed them and as prescribed.

People were provided with food and fluids that met their needs and preferences. Menus offered variety and choice.

There were risk assessments in place for the environment, and for each individual person who received care. Assessments identified people’s specific needs, and showed how risks could be minimised. People were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

There were systems in place to review accidents and incidents and make any relevant improvements as a result.

The registered manager investigated and responded to people’s complaints and people said they felt able to raise any concerns with staff.

Staff respected people and we saw several instances of a kindly touch or a joke and conversation as drinks were being made and at other times during the day.

People were given individual support to take part in their preferred hobbies and interests.

There were systems in place to obtain people’s views about the quality of the service and the care they received. People were listened to and their views were taken into account in the way the service was run.

25 November 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We found that the provider had taken steps to ensure that people using the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risk of unsafe premises. All the fire doors were working correctly, and personal emergency evacuation plans had been completed for all the people who lived at the home.

12 July 2013

During a routine inspection

Some of the people who used this service had limited verbal communication and therefore were not able to tell us directly about their experiences of the service. We spoke with two people who used the service and observed staff supporting people with their daily activities.

People were able to make decisions and choices in their daily lives. Any restrictions on people's freedom of choice had been recorded in people's plans of care, together with the rationale behind these decisions.

Clear guidelines were in place for staff to follow to support people with behaviours that may challenge. Staff demonstrated that they understood these guidelines and put them into practice to help minimise people's anxieties and behaviours.

The home was kept clean by the staff and people who lived in the home. People's rooms had been made personal to them.

Records showed that fire safety equipment was fully operational. However, we found that a number of fire doors did not close if a fire should occur to help prevent it spreading in the home.

People were given their medicines by trained staff in a safe way. Most people were supported on a one to one basis. We saw that there were usually sufficient numbers of staff to meet the individual needs of the people who lived in the home.