We carried out a review of the data available to us about Little Arches 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 Little Arches, you can give feedback on this service.
Little Arches provides accommodation and personal care for up to four people with a learning disability. At the time of our visit four people were using the service.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This 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
People were protected from abuse. Staff understood how to recognise and report any concerns they had about people's safety and well-being. The provider followed safe recruitment processes to ensure the right people were employed. Staff training included a thorough induction and ongoing training to ensure staff had the knowledge and skills they required to meet people's needs. There was enough staff to keep people safe. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were assessed and mitigated. People's medicines were managed safely. The home was clean and staff followed procedures to prevent the spread of infections.
People received food and drink of their choice. When required, people were supported to access healthcare professionals and receive ongoing healthcare support. People were supported to share their views and shape the future of the care they received.
Care plans provided staff with the information they required to meet people's needs in a person centred way. People could choose how they wanted to spend their time. Various activities were offered to people. People were supported to receive end of life care in the way that they wanted and met their individual needs.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. Policies and procedures in the service supported this practice.
The quality assurance system in place to monitor the service provided to people was robust and capable of identifying areas for improvement. People made positive comments about the registered manager.
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was good (published 21 June 2017)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the rating of the service at the last inspection.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The inspection took place on 6 June 2017 and was announced, 48 hours’ notice of the inspection was given because the service is small and we needed to be sure that the registered manager was available and that people who used the service would be in. At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Little Arches’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’
The service has 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Since then there has been no incidents or concerns raised that needed investigation.
People we spoke with told us they felt safe at the home. One person said, “I feel very safe here, staff have helped me a lot I am a lot more confident now.” Staff had a clear understanding of potential abuse which helped them recognise abuse and how they would deal with situations if they arouse.
There were enough skilled and experienced staff and there was a programme of training, supervision and appraisal to support staff to meet people’s needs. Procedures in relation to recruitment and retention of staff were robust and ensured only suitable people were employed in the service.
People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were encouraged to make decisions about meals, and were supported to go shopping and be involved in menu planning. We saw people were involved and consulted about all aspects of their care and support, where they were able, including suggestions for activities and holidays.
People had access to a wide range of activities that were provided both in-house and in the community. People were looking forward to go out to a 70’s disco in the community on the evening of the inspection.
We observed good interactions between staff and people who used the service. People were happy to discuss the day’s events and they told us about a planned holiday to Butlin's in Skegness
People told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and said staff would assist them if they needed to use it.
There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw copies of reports produced by the registered manager. The reports included any actions required and these were checked each month to determine progress.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The inspection took place on 5 May 2015 and was announced, 48 hours’ notice of the inspection was given because the service is small and we needed to be sure that the registered manager was available and that people who used the service would be in. At the last inspection in July 2014 the service was judged compliant with the regulations inspected.
Little Arches Care Home is located on the outskirts of Rotherham. There are local facilities, such as shops and pubs, close by and good public transport links. The home cares for up to four people over the age of 18 years old who have a learning disability. One person lives in an annex flat which is attached to the main building.
The service has 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Since then there has been no incidents or concerns raised that needed investigation.
People we spoke with told us they felt safe while staying at the home. One person said, “I feel very safe here, staff have helped me a lot I am a lot more confident now.” Staff had a clear understanding of potential abuse which helped them recognise abuse and how they would deal with situations if they arose.
There were enough skilled and experienced staff and there was a programme of training, supervision and appraisal to support staff to meet people’s needs. Procedures in relation to
recruitment and retention of staff were robust and ensured only suitable people were employed in the service.
Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. At the time of this inspection the registered manager told us they had not found it necessary to use the safeguards. This legislation is used to protect people who might not be able to make informed decisions on their own.
People were encouraged to make decisions about meals, and were supported to go shopping and be involved in menu planning. We saw people were involved and consulted about all aspects of their care and support, where they were able, including suggestions for activities and holidays.
People had access to a wide range of activities that were provided both in-house and in the community. One person told us they liked going to the theatre while others liked to attend craft sessions at the local church.
We observed good interactions between staff and people who used the service. People were happy to discuss the day’s events and two people told us they were looking forward to a weekend away where they had tickets to see an Elvis tribute show.
People told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and said staff would assist them if they needed to use it.
There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw copies of reports produced by the registered manager. The reports included any actions required and these were checked each month to determine progress.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with five people using the service, three relatives, and the staff supporting them and looking at records.
If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People are treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. One person we spoke with said, 'I feel safe, I have no worries.' Another person said, 'I have my own flat, and the doors are locked and I am safe, I know staff are near if I need them.'
Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, and concerns. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.
The manager told us that she had attended training to ensure she understood her responsibilities to keep people safe. Both the manager and deputy manager had attended training from the local council in the role of the alerter. Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place if required.
The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. This means that people will be safeguarded as required.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. The plans were person centred and health action plans were in place. People said that they had been involved in writing them and they reflected their current needs.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw the manager and a member of staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting the person who received the service. People we spoke with said, 'I like living here, we get to do lots of things like shopping walking and going out for a meal.' People told us about their holidays and time spent with family and friends.
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. For example, staff ensured people were at the centre of all decisions made at the home.
Is the service responsive?
The manager told us that the service is built around the needs of people who used the service. She told us menus and activities were planned and involved everyone living at the home.
Is the service well-led?
The manager leads a small group of staff and has built a strong ethos of enabling people to make their own decisions and lead an independent life.
Staff had worked at the home for a good length of time and told us they enjoyed working at the home.
The service has a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.