Archived: Spring Bank Farm

Updated 9 June 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We visited the service on 20 April 2017, this was an unannounced inspection. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Prior to our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included previous inspection reports, information received and statutory notifications. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We also contacted commissioners (who fund the care for some people) of the service and asked them for their views.

During our inspection we spoke with two relatives, three members of care staff and the home manager. We looked at the care plans of two people and any associated daily records. We looked at four staff files as well as a range of other records relating to the running of the service, such as audits, maintenance records and the medicine administration records for two people.

Updated 9 June 2017

This inspection took place on 20 April 2017 and was unannounced. Spring Bank farm is run and manged by Cabrini Care Limited. The service provides care and support for up to seven people with autism. On the day of our inspection four people were using the service.

The service did not have a registered manager in place at the time of the inspection. Although the present manager was in the process of applying to become 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.

When we last inspected the service on 5 and 6 October 2016 we found people who used the service were not always provided with safe care and treatment, the provider did not always follow safe practices when employing staff and had not undertaken quality audits which would assist them maintain safe standards of care for people who lived at the service The provider sent us an action plan telling us they would make these improvements by November 2016. We found at this inspection that this had been completed and the provider had made improvements in line with the action plan.

The risks to people’s safety were reduced as the staff had good knowledge of the different types of abuse people may be exposed to. They had received training to assist them to recognise safeguarding concerns and they were aware of the process for reporting concerns. Risk assessments had been completed in areas that had been highlighted as potential risks to people’s safety. The service had enough suitable trained staff to provide care and their recruitment processes were safe.

People’s medicines were managed safely and staff received ongoing appropriate training for their roles. People were supported to make independent decisions and staff were aware of legislation to protect people who lacked capacity when decisions were made in their best interests. We also found staff were aware of the principles within the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and had not deprived people of their liberty without applying for the required authorisation.

People were encouraged to follow a healthy balanced diet and any specialist diets were catered for. Staff were supported to manage the different health needs of the people who lived at the service.

People were supported by staff who had an excellent knowledge of their needs and treated them with dignity and respect. Relatives were encouraged to contribute to their family member’s support plans which were person centred and fully reflected their needs. Where required people had access to advocacy services.

People were supported to undertaken a range of social activities of their choice tailored to meet their individual needs.

The management team responded to complaints positively and relatives felt they could report any concerns to them and they would be taken seriously.

The management team undertook quality monitoring processes to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.