Archived: The Old Vicarage

Updated 29 June 2015

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.

This inspection took place on 11 May 2015 and was unannounced. It was carried out by one inspector. Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included previous inspection reports, statutory notifications (issues providers are legally required to notify us about) other enquiries and the Provider’s Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make. At the last inspection on 29 October 2013 the service was meeting the essential standards of quality and safety and no concerns were identified.

We were unable to have conversations with people who lived in the home due to their language and learning difficulties. We observed how staff supported people and relied on our conversations with people’s relatives and the staff to help us understand people’s experiences of the service. We spoke with three people’s relatives, the registered manager, deputy manager, and six members of care staff. We reviewed six care plans and other records relevant to the running of the home. This included staff recruitment files, training records, medication records, complaint and incident reports and performance monitoring reports.

Updated 29 June 2015

This inspection took place on 11 May 2015 and was unannounced.

The service provides accommodation and support for up to eight adults with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of the inspection there were six people living in the home with complex care and communication needs. People had profound learning disabilities and many had physical disabilities including mobility needs and sensory impairments. None of the people were able to engage in conversations and they had little or no verbal communication skills. People required staff support with all of their personal care needs and to go out into the community.

The service 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.

As we were unable to communicate verbally with people, we relied on our observations of care and our conversations with people’s relatives and staff to understand their experiences.

People received care and support in line with their individual care and support plans. They appeared to be very happy and at ease with the staff who were supporting them. We observed people regularly responded to staff approaches with smiles and happy facial expressions. Relatives were very happy with the care provided and felt this had greatly enhanced people’s quality of life. One person’s relative wrote “Words cannot express how pleased we are to see how well (their relative) is being cared for. We are so very thankful for the love and individualised care they receive”. Another person’s relative told us “They have a splendid team and the manager is very approachable”.

People’s relatives said they were always made welcome and were encouraged to visit the home as often as they were able to. They said the service was good at keeping them informed and involving them in decisions about their relatives care.

Individualised communication profiles were available to help staff understand the non-verbal ways in which people expressed their preferences. This included noise vocalisations, facial expressions, body language and physical gestures. We observed staff checked with people before providing care or support and then acted on people’s choices. Where people lacked the mental capacity to make certain decisions about their care and welfare the service knew how to protect people’s rights.

There were enough staff to meet people’s complex needs and to care for them safely. People were protected from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm through appropriate policies, procedures and staff training. Staff received relevant training to effectively support each person’s mental and physical health needs. Staff said they all pulled together as a supportive team and the management were very approachable and supportive.

People participated in a variety of social activities within the home and in the community. The service had good local links to promote people’s involvement in the community and to encourage the general community to value and involve people with disabilities.

People were supported to maintain good health. People had regular health checks and the service received good support from a wide range of healthcare professionals. Local health professionals visited the home when this was requested. Staff from the service supported people to attend hospital and community appointments when needed.

The registered manager participated in a range of forums for exchanging ideas and best practices. This helped the service to maintain standards of care and promote further service improvements.