Archived: Little Eastbrook Farm

Updated 19 December 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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.

People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The inspection was undertaken by one inspector on 25 November 2018 and was announced. This was because this is a small home and we wanted to ensure that they would be in when we inspected.

Before the inspection we reviewed information, we held about the service. We reviewed notifications of incidents the registered manager had sent to us since the last inspection. A notification is information about important events, which the service is required to send us by law.

We also reviewed information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

People living at Little Eastbrook Farm were not able to tell us full information about their experiences of the services. Therefore, during our inspection, we spent time with people observing daily routines and interactions between people and staff supporting them. This helped us gain a better understanding of people and the care they received at the service.

We spoke to the registered manager, joint provider and one staff member. We also looked at records relating to people’s care and the running of the home. These included one person’s care and support plans and records relating to medicine administration and finance records. We also looked at quality monitoring of the service.

Updated 19 December 2018

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 25 November 2018. The provider was given 48 hours' notice because the location was a small care home for adults who may be out during the day; we therefore needed to be sure that someone would be in.

Little Eastbrook Farm provides care and accommodation for up to three people. On the day of our inspection there was one person living at the service. The home provides residential care for people with a learning disability. The service was run as a ‘family run home’ with people living and sharing all aspects of family life. For example, sharing living space. The PIR (Provider Information Record) states; “We currently provide a one to one service, and (X- the person who lives in the service) are considered as part of the family.”

People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager, who was also the registered provider, 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.

We checked the service was working in line with ‘Registering the right support’, which makes sure services for people with a learning disability and/or autism receive services are developed in line with national policy - including the national plan, Building the right support - and best practice. For example, how the service ensured care was personalised, discharge if needed, people’s independence and links with their community.

The service has now improved to Good in Effective.

At the last comprehensive inspection on the 27 May 2016, the service was rated Good overall. However, it was rated Requires improvement in Effective. We followed this inspection up with a focussed inspection to look at the improvements they had made. At the follow up inspection in August 2017 we found the staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but some records needed improving to ensure all decision making was recorded. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated Good:

People were not able to fully verbalise all their views therefore they were not able to tell us about all their experience of living there. We spent time with people seeing how they spent their day and observing the interactions between people and the staff supporting them. However, when asked if they were happy living in Little Eastbrook Farm said ‘Yes’ and they ‘didn’t want to move out.’

People remained safe at the service. People were protected from abuse as staff understood what action they needed to take if they suspected anyone was being abused, mistreated or neglected. Staff, who had worked at the service for many years, had been recruited safely and had completed checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).

People’s risks were assessed, monitored and managed by staff to help ensure they remained safe. Staff assessed and understood risks associated with people’s care and current lifestyle. Risks were managed effectively to keep people safe whilst maintaining people’s rights and independence.

People had their medicines managed safely, and received their medicines in a way they chose and preferred. Staff had completed training in medicines and had contact with the local pharmacist to ensure best practice.

People were supported by staff who had completed training to meet their needs effectively. 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 was monitored by the staff and they had access to a variety of healthcare professionals. The registered manager worked closely with external health and social care professionals to help ensure a coordinated approach to people’s care.

People’s legal rights were upheld and consent to care was sought. Care records held detailed information on how people liked their needs to be met; considering people’s preferences and wishes. Information recorded included people’s previous medical and social history and people’s cultural, religious and spiritual needs.

People were treated with kindness and compassion by the staff who valued them as individuals. The registered manager, joint provider and the staff member had built strong relationships with people who lived there. Staff respected people’s privacy.

People, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about the care and support people received. The service remained responsive to people's individual needs and provided personalised care and support.

People’s communication needs were known by staff. People could make choices about their day to day lives. The registered manager supported people daily and knew when people where happy or had any concerns. Staff knew people well and used this to gauge how people were feeling.

The service continued to be well led. The registered manager and joint provider monitored the service daily using systems which enabled them to identify good practices and areas of improvement.

People lived in a service which had been designed and adapted to meet their needs. The service was monitored by the registered manager and joint provider to help ensure its ongoing quality and safety. The provider’s governance framework, helped monitor the ongoing quality and safety of the care people were receiving.

Further information is in the detailed findings below