We carried out a review of the data available to us about Acorn Village 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 Acorn Village, you can give feedback on this service.
Acorn Village comprises of seven houses (Catkins, Phyllis Mary Lodge, Mistley Wood, Spring Lodge, Jubilee House, Oak Lodge and Gregory House). Overall Acorn Village provides care and support for up to 38 people, with each house providing specialist care and support for adults who have a learning disability and/or autistic spectrum. The service also has three small satellite homes under the same registration that provides supported living accommodation to 22 people.
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 included choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
At the last inspection, the service was rated good. At this inspection, we found the service remained good.
There was a registered manager in place. 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 safe because staff supported them to understand how to keep safe and staff knew how to manage risk effectively. There were sufficient numbers of care staff on shift with the correct skills and knowledge to keep people safe. There were appropriate arrangements in place for medicines to be stored and administered safely.
The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how a provider applies the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way. Management and staff understood their responsibility in this area. Staff were committed to ensuring all decisions were made in people’s best interest.
Staff had good relationships with people who used the service and were attentive to their needs. People’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times. People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and support.
Care plans were individual and contained information about how people preferred to communicate and their ability to make decisions.
People were encouraged to take part in activities that they enjoyed. Staff supported people to keep in contact with family members.
When needed, people were supported to see health professionals and referrals were put through to ensure they had the appropriate care and treatment.
Relatives and staff were complimentary about the management of the service. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in providing safe and good quality care to the people who used the service.
There was a management structure in place, which provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Staff were committed and supported. Quality assurance checks were carried out to ensure people received a high quality service which met their needs and protected their rights.
Acorn Village comprises of seven houses (Catkins, Phyllis Mary Lodge, Mistley Wood, Spring Lodge, Jubilee House, Oak Lodge and Gregory House). Overall Acorn Village provides care and support for up to 38 people, with each house providing specialist care and support for adults who have a learning disability and/or autistic spectrum.
There were 36 people living in the service when we inspected on 3 and 7 September 2015. This was an unannounced inspection.
There were two registered managers in post. 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, or their representatives, were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People’s care plans had been tailored to the individual and contained information about how they communicated and their ability to make decisions. The service was up to date with changes to the law regarding the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Improvements were needed in how information about DoLS were shared with the staff.
There were procedures in place which safeguarded the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood the various types of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to.
There were procedures and processes in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. These included checks on the environment and risk assessments which identified how the risks to people were minimised.
There were appropriate arrangements in place to ensure people’s medicines were obtained, stored and administered safely.
Staff were trained and supported to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff were available when people needed assistance, care and support.
Staff had good relationships with people who used the service and were attentive to their needs. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity at all times and interacted with people in a caring, respectful and professional manner.
People were supported to see, when needed, health and social care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment.
People’s nutritional needs were being assessed and met. Where concerns were identified about a person’s food intake, or ability to swallow, appropriate referrals had been made for specialist advice and support.
A complaints procedure was in place. People’s concerns and complaints were listened to, addressed in a timely manner and used to improve the service.
Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in providing safe and good quality care to the people who used the service. The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were addressed. As a result the quality of the service continued to improve.
During this review we found that the provider had taken sufficient action to improve the staff supervision and appraisal process and ensure that staff were supported in their role.
The majority of people had complex communication difficulties and were unable to tell us about their experiences of using the service. Our observations suggested that people living at the service were happy, that they felt safe and were well cared for. It was evident that people who used the service had a good relationship and rapport with support assistants.
People's health and personal care needs were assessed and there were detailed care plans in place for support staff to follow so as to ensure that people were supported safely and in accordance with people's individual preferences and wishes. Support staff spoken with demonstrated a good understanding of people's health and personal care needs.
The provider was able to demonstrate that a robust staff recruitment policy and procedure was in place and followed to ensure that people living at the service were kept safe. We found that medication practices and procedures maintained people's health and wellbeing. Improvements were required to ensure that staff supervision and appraisal records were robust.
People told us that they chose what they wanted to do in their lives and that the staff listened to them and acted on what they said. One person said, 'I always choose what I want to do.' Another person said, 'The staff listen to me.' Another said, 'I go where I want.' Four people told us that they had made choices about the activities they participated in, holidays and what they ate.
People told us that the staff treated them with respect and kindness. One person said, 'They (staff) are nice.' Another person said, 'The staff are good.' This was confirmed in our observations during our inspection. We saw that staff interacted with people in a caring, respectful and professional manner.
We looked at the care records of five people who used the service and found that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.
Staff personnel records that were seen showed that staff were trained and supported to meet the needs of the people who used the service.
One person with whom we spoke told us that "I can talk to my keyworker if I ever need to". People told us that they felt comfortable talking to the staff about any issues that they had. People told us that there were generally staff available to them whenever they needed them. One person with whom we spoke said that "Nothing was ever too much trouble."
People told us, when we visited, that they liked the service and that it provided a nice environment for them and that they liked their rooms and found them comfortable.
One person with whom we spoke told us that "I like my flat and I chose the colour and pictures".
People using the service looked relaxed and at ease. One person with whom we spoke told us, "The staff are kind to me and I can ask them for help if I need to". People told us that the service supported them in seeing their doctor and attending hospital appointments.