Vermont House

Updated 3 April 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was undertaken by an inspector and an assistant inspector.

Service and service type

Vermont House is a care home. 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 service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We met all of the people that used the service and spoke with four people and two relatives about their experience of the care provided. We also observed the way support was provided to people. We spoke with six support staff, the deputy manager, registered manager, and a visiting healthcare professional.

We reviewed a range of documents and records including the care and medicine records for five people, three staff recruitment files and training records. We also looked at records that related to the management and quality assurance of the service.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate the evidence found. We requested training information, audits and quality assurance records.

Updated 3 April 2020

About the service

Vermont House is registered to provide support to up to nine people and there were five people using the service at the time of our inspection. The service is larger than recommended by best practice guidance. However, we have rated this service good because they had arranged the service in a way that ensured people received person-centred care and were supported to maximise their independence, choice, control and involvement in the community.

The service was working in accordance with 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.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. The building design fitted into the residential area as there were other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Timely action had not been taken by the provider to ensure people lived in a safe and well-maintained home. Following our inspection visit the provider did act and replaced fire doors to ensure the home was safe and began the renewal programme that had been developed.

People felt safe, and staff provided support that met their individual needs. Staff knew how to escalate concerns and were aware of potential risks when providing support. People received their medicines when they needed them. Staff wore gloves and aprons when needed to ensure they protected people from cross infection. Systems were in place to review incident and accidents to see if there were any lessons to learn from these.

Staff felt valued and supported in their roles and confirmed they had the training they needed to support people effectively. People’s healthcare needs were monitored and met, and staff worked in partnership with healthcare professionals. People, as much as practicably possible, had choice and control of their lives and staff were aware of how to support them in the least restrictive way and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People and relatives made positive comments about the staff that supported them, describing them as friendly and supportive.

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.

A complaints procedure was in place and people and their relatives knew how to raise concerns and felt confident these would be addressed. People, relatives and staff thought the service was managed well and told us positive changes were being made since the arrival of the new registered manager. The registered manager was described as approachable, supportive and open and transparent in the way they managed the service. Systems were in place to monitor the delivery of the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection (and update)

The last rating for this service was good (Published 3 November 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.