We carried out a review of the data available to us about Little Ingestre House 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 Ingestre House, you can give feedback on this service.
Little Ingestre House is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 15 people, over two floors. At the time of our inspection 12 people with a physical or learning disability were living at the home.
The service has not 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.
The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 15 people; this is larger than current best practice guidance. However. the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. For example, there were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. The home was spacious and had multiple communal areas.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
During the inspection we observed warm and comfortable relationships between staff and people living in the home. Feedback from people and the relative we spoke with was all positive. People were encouraged and supported to maintain and improve their independence.
Medications were not always safely managed however this was immediately acted on by the registered manager and evidence of actions taken was made available following the inspection.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
Incident and accidents were analysed for patterns and trends. Risks to people were assessed safely, care plans were person centred and regularly updated. Care records contained important information regarding people’s histories, families, likes and dislikes. This information was used to personalise support to meet each person’s needs. People were supported by compassionate staff who respected their privacy and dignity. People were involved in regular reviews of their care and encouraged to give feedback.
The registered manager and provider made effective use of audits and other sources of information to review and improve practice. People were able to give their opinions on the care they received and a range of communication methods were in place to ensure people continued to have this opportunity.
People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and had access to healthcare professionals should they need them.
Staff were recruited following safe processes and received appropriate inductions into the service. Staff also received supervisions and attended regular meetings. Feedback from staff we spoke with was all positive and people told us how supportive the register manager was.
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; 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 11 March 2017).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Little Ingestre House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 15 people with a physical disability. There were 13 people living at the home when we visited.
There were two registered managers'. 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.
People were being safeguarded from abuse as staff and the management team followed the local safeguarding procedures if they suspected someone had suffered potential abuse.
Risks of harm to people were assessed and action was taken to minimise the risks through the effective use of risk assessment. Staff knew people's risks and followed their risk assessments.
There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff to keep people safe and meet their needs in a timely manner.
Staff had been recruited using safe recruitment procedures to ensure they were of good character and fit to work with people who used the service.
People's medicines were stored and administered safely by trained staff.
The principles of The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were being followed as the provider was ensuring that people were consenting to their care.
Staff told us and we saw they had received training and were supported to be effective in their roles.
People were supported to maintain a healthy diet dependent on their individual preferences. People received regular health care support and were referred to other health care agencies for support and advice if they became unwell or their needs changed.
People were treated with dignity and respect and their right to privacy was upheld.
Care was personalised and met people's individual needs and preferences. People were involved in the planning of their care.
People were supported to participate in hobbies and activities of their choice within the home and community.
The provider had a complaints procedure and people's complaints were taken seriously and acted upon.
The provider had systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of service.
This inspection took place on 25 and 27 November 2014 and was unannounced.
Little Ingestre provides accommodation and personal care to 13 people with a physical disability. There were 12 people living at the home when we visited.
Little Ingestre 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.
People’s wishes were always taken into account on the way their care was planned and delivered. People were involved in developing the service through a ‘resident group’ that identified areas where the service could be improved. We saw that the provider listened to their views and took positive action to respond to requests for changes and improvements in the service provided.
People told us they felt safe. Risks to people were managed effectively. Risks were identified, assessed and plans were in place to minimise the risks to people and to ensure that people’s wishes were respected. Risks were regularly reviewed with the person concerned.
Staff knew about different types of abuse and knew how to respond to any concerns. Appropriate action was taken when concerns were identified.
There were sufficient staff on duty to provide people with the care they needed in the way they wanted. The staffing levels were adapted when people’s needs changed. There was a robust recruitment procedure in place to make sure that suitable staff were recruited to provide people’s care.
Effective systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines in the manner and at the time the doctor prescribed. People confirmed that they always received their medicines.
People were supported by staff that were trained and supported to provide care to a satisfactory standard. Where people had specialist needs staff had the knowledge and skills to provide care that met their needs.
People’s health and nutritional needs were met. People had a choice of meals and mealtimes were a positive experience. Where people had specialist dietary requirements they received the correct care and support to make sure these needs were met. People accessed health care services. They saw their GP when they were ill and received specialist health care support from professionals including a dietician and speech and language therapists. People received dental and eye check-ups.
The care staff followed the guidance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. When people needed support to make decisions this was recorded and we saw this was acted upon. Where people were unable to make more complex decisions this was done in their best interest and included significant people who knew them well. The managers were aware of the provisions of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards(DoLS). No one at the service was subject to any restrictions that required a DoLS authorisation.
People told us and we observed that people were supported in a caring and compassionate way. Their rights to privacy and dignity were promoted. Care staff knew how people expressed their wishes and made sure that their views were acted upon in the way their care was provided.
People received individualised care that was responsive to people’s preferences. People made choices about their lifestyle and how their care was provided. People had the opportunity to take part in hobbies and interests of their choice as well as trying out new experiences. People went out into the community. This was an area that the provider had identified could be further developed.
People told us the service was well led. We observed that the managers were very visible and knew people well. Care staff felt valued and encouraged to develop their knowledge and skills. Staff felt confident that any concerns over care practices would be acted upon.
There were effective systems in place to review and monitor the care people received. Where any shortfalls were identified action was taken to improve the service. The managers and providers were continually trying to improve the service provided to people that lived at the home.