We carried out a review of the data available to us about Longlast on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Longlast, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ Procedures in place to support safe visiting at the service were extremely robust. People were supported to maintain contact with their loved ones. People and relatives had choice about how they received their visits, such as visiting inside the service, use of a visiting pod in the garden and visits in the community or to relatives’ homes.
¿ There was good compliance with testing. This had supported staff to react quickly when positive cases occurred. Contingency plans were immediately implemented. The environment had already been assessed and was utilised to support people to access their bedrooms, communal areas and the garden when positive cases occurred. This helped to minimise the risk of cross infection.
¿ Quality assurance measures supported the high level of infection prevention and control measures at the service. All staff had received and embedded their training in infection prevention and control and donning and doffing PPE. The service had good stocks of PPE.
We last inspected the service on 20 November 2015 and found the provider was meeting the fundamental standards of relevant regulations. At that time we rated Longlast as ‘Good’ overall and ‘good’ in four domains. We rated the service as ‘Outstanding’ in one domain, namely 'well-led’.
Longlast 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. Longlast can accommodate up to 11 people in one building and provides care for people living with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection nine people were in receipt of care from the service.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
The registered manager had been in post since 2006. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like 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 found staff were committed to delivering a service which improved the lives of the people who use the service in fulfilling and creative ways. Their drive and passion had created an exceptionally dynamic and vibrant service. Staff focused totally on the goals and aspirations of the people who used it and relatives told us the service provided care that was exceptional. Social workers we spoke with told us Longlast give careful consideration to ensuring people were a compatible match to existing residents. They provided high levels of care and support in a family type environment with lots of opportunities for social integration away from the home.
Staff worked collaboratively with people to assist them to ensure their voices were heard by healthcare professionals. Staff went over and above the expectations for residential care homes when people needed to stay in hospital and would provide individuals with one-to-one support from 8am to 10pm throughout their stay. The service was making a difference to people’s wellbeing by working well as a team, in harmony with one another sharing the same values and principles. The service was proactive in providing people with a range of information to assist them to make decisions about their health and wellbeing.
Staff were exceptionally caring and understood how to support and enable individuals to maximise their potential. The service's visions and values promoted people's rights to make choices and live a dignified and fulfilled life. This was reflected in the care and support that people received. Staff understood people's different ways of communicating and how to make people feel valued.
We found that the registered manager had encouraged staff to constantly think about improvements. We found that the management style had led to people who used the service and staff feeling that they were integral and essential partners in the operation of the service. People made the key decisions about who was employed, menus, the décor and the range of activities.
We found the registered manager had provided strong leadership and constantly critically reviewed the service. They routinely identified how they could enhance the service and ensure the staff remained at the forefront of best practice when working with the people who used the service. Their oversight of the service and encouragement of staff to keep abreast of developments and be innovative had led to excellent outcomes for the people who used the service and their relatives.
We observed that people were encouraged to participate in activities that were meaningful to them. People were supported to develop their independent living skills. We heard how one person had recently moved into the service and had been extending the range of activities they could complete. Staff told us that this person was becoming more confident and had learnt a variety of new skills. Staff took on dedicated roles for sourcing and setting up both activities people could do at the service and in the community. People were exceptionally complimentary about the staff.
We saw people’s care plans were person centred and had been well assessed. People’s care needs were risk assessed with risk management plans in place and support for staff when they needed it. We found staff ensured the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) requirements were met.
People were supported to be as independent as possible and could access advocacy services if needed. Procedures were in place to investigate and respond to complaints.
We saw that staff were recruited safely and were given appropriate training before they commenced employment. Staff told us they received supervision on a monthly basis and they received annual appraisals. Staff were respected within the organisation and were provided with comprehensive range of training. We found the senior management team were consistently striving for excellence and assisting people and staff to reach their maximum potential. Staff were supported to achieve excellence in their roles by attending specialist training around working with people who had specific conditions.
There were sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of the people and the staff team were very supportive of the registered manager, the providers and of each other.
Medicines were stored and administered in a safe manner and staff were appropriately trained.
The registered manager used effective systems to continually monitor the quality of the service and had on-going plans for improving the service people received. The provider gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources including people who used the service, their family and friends and external agencies. This was used to enable the provider to identify where improvement was needed and to sustain continuous improvement in the service.
The registered manager had informed CQC of significant events in a timely way by submitting the required notifications. This meant we could check that appropriate action had been taken.
The inspection visit took place on 20 November 2015. This was an unannounced inspection which meant that the staff and provider did not know that we would be visiting.
We last inspected the service in November 2013 and found the service was not in breach of any regulations at that time. The service had changed its registration since our last visit to add a further two ensuite bedrooms and had also changed into a limited company although the previous two providers were still in daily contact and visited the home regularly to support its running.
Longlast is a home for people with learning disabilities and is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to eleven people. The home is in a rural setting, on the outskirts of a village. The proprietors provide transport to enable people to use local amenities and attend activities further afield.
There is a registered manager in post. 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.
We met with eight people who lived at the home who had a range of communication skills, people had some verbal communication whilst other people used signs or gestures which staff interpreted. Several people were out at their day activities during the course of our visit but several people were at home carrying out activities with staff.
We observed people were encouraged to participate in activities that were meaningful to them. People were involved in baking cupcakes and decorating them and other people were invited to watch a film.
We found there were policies in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and staff were fully aware of what these meant and the implications for people living at the service. All paperwork in relation to the eight authorisations for people were in place and were well managed to ensure any updates or renewals were flagged up as requiring action before they expired. People also had best interests decisions in place and these had been undertaken with the person and others close to them such as family and other professionals. This meant people’s rights were upheld.
The service was developing the environment and following the addition of two ground floor bedrooms to assist people whose mobility needs were changing, they had also developed a TV/cinema room where the previous evening everyone had enjoyed a Race Night event. .
We saw that staff were recruited safely and were given appropriate training before they commenced employment. Staff had also received more specific training in managing the needs of people who used the service such as positive behaviour support. There were sufficient and flexibly deployed staff on duty to meet the needs of the people and the staff team were very supportive of the registered manager, the providers and of each other.
Medicines were stored and administered in a safe manner and staff were appropriately trained.
There was a regular programme of staff supervision in place. Records of these meetings were detailed and showed the home worked with staff to identify and support their personal and professional development. We saw a good programme of induction for staff new to the service and a thorough and robust recruitment process.
We saw people’s care plans were person centred and had been well assessed. We saw people were being given choices and encouraged to take part in all aspects of day to day life at the service, from going to day services to helping prepare the lunch. One person had recently transitioned into the home and we saw this had been planned and assessed so it was as smooth as possible. The service had also supported someone to transition from the service and had worked with them and professionals despite the service not being able to meet their needs.
The registered manager and providers demonstrated passion and commitment to people, strong values and a desire to learn about and implement best practice throughout the service. Staff were motivated and proud of their work they did. The service had developed and sustained effective links with stakeholders and their local community that helped them develop best practice and contribute to the development of other organisations that supported people with disabilities.
The registered manager used effective systems to continually monitor the quality of the service and had ongoing plans for improving the service people received. The provider gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources including people who used the service, their family and friends and external agencies. This was used to enable the provider to identify where improvement was needed and to implement and sustain continuous improvement in the service.
The service actively supported people to be involved in the local community as much as possible and were supported to access regular facilities such as the local G.P, shops and leisure facilities. We spoke with the local GP service who praised the relationship and communication they had with the service. The service also got people involved in the local community, attending coffee mornings in the local village , utilising local community clubs such as knitting and dancing sessions and bringing in local experts to undertake exercise sessions.
We also saw a regular programme of staff meetings where issues were shared and raised and staff told us how they felt supported and supported each other well. The service had consulted about how staffing should be provided to meet the needs of people using the service and had agreed a way of staff rostering. The service had an easy read complaints procedure and staff told us how they could recognise if someone was unhappy. This showed the service listened to the views of people and have developed and sustained a positive culture.