Archived: Homefield College Limited - 51 Greedon Rise

Homefield College Limited - 51 Greedon Rise is a residential care home providing personal care to three people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to three people.

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

Improvements were needed to managerial quality assurance systems and processes to enable the registered manager to have a better oversight of the service. People knew the management team by name as they regularly provided support to people. People, relatives and staff provided positive feedback about the management team. The service sought feedback from people about their care experience to ensure any issues or concerns were promptly addressed.

Improvements were needed to mental capacity act (MCA) assessments and best interest decisions. However, we found people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive ways possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s needs were assessed before receiving care from the service to inform the development of their care plans.

People received care from staff that were kind, caring and compassionate. People and staff had built positive relationships together and enjoyed spending time together. Staff were respectful and open to people of all faiths and beliefs. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People were supported by staff that took time to find out about their hobbies, interests and what was important to them. People accessed planned daytime activities, and outside of these engaged in activities of their choosing. Easily accessible complaints information was available to people living at the home. People knew who to speak with if they had any concerns and felt confident their concerns would be addressed.

People felt safe and were supported by staff that kept them safe from harm or abuse. Medicines were administered on time and people were supported by staff that had been safely recruited. Staff had a good knowledge of risks associated with providing people’s care and had undertaken training relevant to their role. Accidents and incidents were reported, and lessons were learned.

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.

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 4 August 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.

Homefield College Limited – 51 Greedon Rise is located in Sileby, Leicestershire. The service provides accommodation for up to three people who have a learning disability or autism. There were three people using the service at the time of our inspection. At the last inspection in February 2015, the service was rated overall Good however, required improvement in Effective because the staff team had limited knowledge with regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). At this inspection we found that the service remained Good and improvements had been made around staffs knowledge of MCA .

The service had a registered manager. 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 told us they felt safe living at Homefield College Limited – 51 Greedon Rise. Relatives we spoke with agreed that people were safe living there. Staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities for keeping people safe and were aware of what to look out for if they suspected that someone was at risk of harm. People's care and support needs had been identified and the associated risks had been assessed and managed. Where risks had been identified these had, where ever possible, been minimised to better protect people's health and welfare. Appropriate processes were followed when new members of staff had been recruited to make sure they were suitable to work there. People received their medicines as prescribed and in a safe way and there were appropriate systems in place to audit the management of medicines.

The staff team were appropriately trained and were supported through supervisions and staff meetings. They were aware of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which meant people’s human rights were protected. People had access to all of the relevant health care services that they needed to keep them well. They were supported to maintain a healthy, balanced diet and were fully involved in the development of the menus that were in place. The menus catered for each person’s individual needs and preferences.

The staff team were kind and caring and they treated people with dignity and respect. They involved people in making day to day decisions about their care and support and people told us that the staff team knew them well.

People were supported in a way they preferred because plans of care had been developed with them and with people who knew them well. People were regularly reminded of what to do if they had a concern of any kind.

Staff members felt supported by the management team. They explained that they were given the opportunity to meet with them on a regular basis and felt able to speak with them if they had any concerns or suggestions of any kind.

People’s views of the service were sought through meetings and informal chats. Systems were in place to regularly monitor the service being provided and a business continuity plan was available for the staff team to follow in the event of an emergency or untoward event.

We found that people had access to a wide range of community facilities and courses, dependent on their individual needs and choices. These included activities such as learning independent living skills, horticulture, art, drama and swimming. The service had a fully working caf' known as 'Barrow Treats' in a neighbouring village and people were supported to work within the caf' as part of their timetable of activities. In addition, the service also had an internet caf' known as 'Sip and Surf' in Loughborough. People were encouraged and supported to participate in cleaning, food shopping and meal preparation and we found that people's independence was promoted by the service.

We looked at the records of one peorson who used the service and found care plans were detailed and thorough and provided clear guidance to staff about how the persons' care should be delivered.

However, we found that the service did not have suitable arrangements in place for obtaining people's consent and acting in accordance with the best interests of the person when they were unable to consent to the care and treatment being provided.

Staff had been appropriately screened to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of people who used the service and treated people with dignity and respect.

Records we looked at were accurate and fit for purpose.