We carried out a review of the data available to us about HF Trust - Severn Cottage 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 HF Trust - Severn Cottage, you can give feedback on this service.
The care service had not been developed or designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This was because the home provided accommodation for up to 19 people, some of whom were expected to use shared facilities including bathrooms and communal areas. The home was located within a 'campus' style location which contained other care homes with day centre facilities also on site.
People’s experience of using this service:
•People told us they were happy living at the home and with the staff who supported them. There was a relaxed and inclusive atmosphere. One person said, “The staff are kind to me and they are all nice. I am very happy here."
•Risks to people were monitored and procedures were in place to help keep people safe.
•There were safe systems for the management and administration of people’s prescribed medicines.
•People were supported by adequate numbers of staff who were safe and competent to work with them.
•People were protected from the risks associated with the control and spread of infection.
•Staff understood the importance of ensuring people’s rights were understood and protected.
•People were 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’s health care and nutritional needs were monitored and understood by staff.
•Staff understood and respected people’s needs and preferences and interactions were kind and caring.
•People had opportunities for social stimulation and were able to maintain links with the local community.
•The registered manager and provider followed effective procedures to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.
Rating at last inspection: At our last inspection in September 2016 (report published 5 November 2016) the service was rated good.
Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to
visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
At our last inspection on 21 July 2015, we found there was not always enough staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs and the service was not always well led. At this inspection, we found the registered manager had made the required improvements.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 registered manager received support from a staff team, which included senior support workers and support workers.
People received care and support, which kept them safe, and staff protected people from the risk of harm. Staff understood people’s risks and took action to help keep people safe. The registered manager had systems in place to make sure staff were recruited safely and there was enough staff to meet people’s needs. People received their medicines as prescribed and staff administered them safely.
People received care and support from staff that had the skills to meet their needs. The registered manager and staff understood the principles of the MCA and DoLS and could apply these when delivering care and support. People were asked for their consent to receive care and support. People had access to a choice of meals and received support to maintain a balanced diet. People with special dietary requirements had their needs met. People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing.
People had caring relationships with the staff and other people who used the service. People were able to express their views and be involved in decisions about their care and support. People were encouraged to maintain their independence and develop new skills. People had their dignity and privacy respected by staff.
People were involved in developing and reviewing their care and support plans. The care plans were personalised and responded to people’s needs. People were supported to do things they enjoyed and follow their interests. People were able to raise issues of concern and make complaints and the registered manager had systems in place to investigate and learn from complaints. The registered manager had systems in place to listen to people and their relatives and used this information to improve the service people received.
People could talk openly to staff and the registered manager who promoted an open culture. Management systems were in place to support staff to deliver effective care and support. The registered manager monitored the quality of the service and they listened to people’s feedback and made improvements to the services as a result.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 21 July 2015. At the last inspection in April 2014, we found the provider was meeting all of the requirements of the regulations we reviewed.
Severn Cottage and Rose House is registered to provide accommodation for up to 19 people with a learning disability who require personal care and support. On the day of the inspection there were 16 people living at Severn Cottage and two people living in Rose House. There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 protected from harm by staff who had received training and had a good understanding of the different types of potential abuse and how to report suspected abuse. Most staff considered there was enough staff to provide people with the level of support they needed. However, some staff felt an improvement in staffing levels would provide people with greater opportunities to undertake personalised activities. Staff absences had impacted on staff morale. The provider had very recently recruited to vacant posts and were awaiting checks on new staff before they commenced work.
People were supported by staff who were trained and confident in providing people with effective care and support. However, not all staff felt supported in their work. Staff obtained people’s consent prior to providing care and support and people were involved in making decisions. People were supported to access healthcare professionals and their health needs were monitored and reviewed but recommendations made by some professionals were not always swiftly acted on in relation to one person.
People liked the staff and found them kind and caring. Staff had developed positive working relationships with the people they supported and promoted people’s dignity, privacy and independence. Staff were aware of people’s individual needs and preferences and these were documented in the care records.
People were supported to follow their interests and maintain relationships with people important to them. People were involved in their care but this was not always reflective in the care records we saw. Some records had not been reviewed in line with the stated timescales. People knew who to speak with if they were unhappy with the service provided.
A new manager had been appointed and was being supported by the current registered manager. Not all staff felt positive about the culture of the service and had experienced change following a restructure of the organisation. The management team were aware of the strengths of the service and areas for further development including the need to improve record management systems. There were processes in place to gain people’s views and to monitor the quality of the service provided.
Is the service safe?
Is the service effective?
Is the service caring?
Is the service responsive?
Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and looking at records.
If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
This was the first time that Severn Cottage and Rose House had been inspected since HF Trust Limited became the new providers of the service.
We looked at how the home supported people who received a service and how they kept people safe. We looked at how they managed medicines and how they supported staff. We looked at how they monitored and reviewed the quality of the care provided.
Is the service safe?
We spoke with seven people who received a service and they told us that they were very happy living at Severn Cottage and Rose House. They told us that they felt well looked after by the staff who supported them.
We saw that staff were knowledgeable about the individual needs of the people they supported. They told us that people would tell them how they preferred to be supported. They also told us that people would speak out if they were unhappy with anything. We saw people expressing their views and opinions to staff during our visit.
We spoke with a representative of a person who received a service. They told us that they felt reassured that their relative was, 'In safe hands'. They told us that their relative was always happy to come home after spending time with them.
The people who received a service told us that staff were, 'Good'. They knew who their key worker was and told us what they did to help them. Staff told us that they were well trained and supported. They said that they had the skills to meet people's individual needs safely.
Although some risks were not appropriately documented, we were told how risks to people's safety and welfare were assessed and when necessary actions were taken to reduce risks. Staff gave us examples of how risks were managed while maintaining people's independence. Record keeping is in the process of being improved by the manager.
Is the service effective?
The people who spoke with us told us that they led full and active lives. People who received a service gave us examples of activities that they took part in. They told us of places they had recently visited and how much they had enjoyed them. We saw that activities were arranged in consultation with people and by knowing individual's likes and hobbies.
People's health and care needs were assessed and actions were taken to ensure that those needs were met. Staff worked with outside health and social care professionals as required. We saw how this joint working was documented in care plans for consistency.
People were able to maintain their independence and we saw that some people led active lives with only minimal staff support.
Is the service caring?
We spoke with seven people who received a service. They told us that staff were caring and supportive. One person told us, 'The staff help me whenever I need them. They are nice to me'. We saw staff supporting people with their morning routines. Staff worked hard to ensure that they helped people as soon as they asked for support.
We looked at care plans and saw that people's preferences, interests, aspirations and needs had been recorded. People gave us examples of how staff supported them. This information was reflected in the records seen.
Is the service responsive?
We saw how staff listened to people and acted in accordance with their wishes. We saw how the manager (who is in the process of being registered with the Care Quality Commission) had sought the views and experiences of the people who received a service. They gave us examples of how people's needs had changed and they had responded accordingly. A representative of a person who received a service told us how staff listened to their wishes. However they also told us that staff did not always continue to implement changes long term. They told us that this was an area where improvements could be made. The manager responded immediately to this feedback and committed to making and monitoring changes.
We saw how staff responded positively to meet people's needs when they changed their minds about what they wanted to do. At the time of our inspection, we saw that staff were very busy but always accommodated people's wishes in a relaxed and unhurried way.
People told us that they met with the manager to discuss the service they received and anything else that they wanted to talk about. They said that they enjoyed these meetings. The manager told us that the opportunity to gather people's views and experiences was important to them. They told us how they implemented changes to the service in response to issues raised. Representatives also told us that they had opportunities to meet with the manager to share their views.
We saw how the manager had sought written feedback from people who receive a service and their representatives. The manager told us how they were collating responses to form an action plan.
Is the service well-led?
We saw how the manager did regular reviews and audits. They told us that they had effective monitoring tools that reassured them that they provided a good service. We saw examples of these. The manager also told us how the service provider worked with them to monitor and assess the quality of the service.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. This helped to ensure that people received an appropriate service at all times. Staff felt well supported and told us that appropriate training took place regularly.