We carried out a review of the data available to us about Gloucestershire Community 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 Gloucestershire Community, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin 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 coordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support in the following ways. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible to gain new skills and become more independent . Where people lacked capacity to make decisions for themselves, the service used the least restrictive methods to support them. People were able to access the community and take part in activities which were tailored to their individual needs.
• People’s risks had been identified and appropriate safety measures were in place. People were supported by a consistent team of staff who were kind and caring.
• Staff had good relationships with people and knew them well. People told us they were happy with the staff who supported them.
• People received their medicines as prescribed and medicines were managed safely.
• People could see healthcare professionals when needed and supported to live healthy lives.
• Staff knowledge in relation to people’s conditions, their needs, and how to support them was thorough.
• Care plans were person centred and included people’s personal preferences. This meant people received a service which was tailored to their individual needs.
• People were supported to take part in various activities such as woodwork, social farming and pottery.
• There was an open culture where staff and people could raise concerns or issues. People told us they felt safe at the service and felt happy to speak up.
• People, relatives and staff told us the service was well-led. The registered manager was a visible presence and knew people and their relatives well.
• People’s feedback was encouraged and used to shape the service.
The service met the characteristics of Good overall. For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated Good (This report was published on 8 July 2016).
Why we inspected: We inspected this service as part of our ongoing Adult Social Care inspection programme. This was a planned inspection based on the previous Good rating. Previous CQC ratings and the time since the last inspection were also taken into consideration.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
There was a manager at the time of our inspection who was in the process of applying to be the registered manager as required by their conditions of registration. 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 and associated regulations about how the service is run.
People lived, worked and socialised in the Camphill Village Trust communities. They worked and lived by the values of the provider which was to provide educational, therapeutic, and creative environment with the aim to be self-sufficient. People told us they enjoyed living in the communities and were supported by staff and volunteers who were kind and compassionate towards them. They were supported by staff who understood their responsibility to protect them from harm.
People enjoyed a healthy diet from ingredients produced from the farm and gardens or purchased locally. They had the choice to take part in activities in the community workshops or also had opportunities to carry out activities in the local town and area.
People had been involved in the decision to move to one of the communities. People’s individual needs had been assessed and recorded. Their risks had been identified and managed well. People’s support plans included information about how they preferred to be supported. Staff were knowledgeable about their needs, wishes and preferences. However, the details of the lawful consent to receive care were not always evident when people could not make a decision about their care and support for themselves. The management and administration of their medicines was based on people’s individual support needs.
Robust recruitment systems ensured people were supported by suitable staff who were of good character. Suitable staffing levels were in place so people could be adequately supported in their home and carrying out activities in the workshops and in the community. Staff had been trained to carry out their role. The managers and the team leaders of senior staff of the shared houses carried out frequent audits and checks of the quality of service being delivered.
People told us that they felt safe when supported by staff. One person added that staff were respectful when interacting with them and said they respected their privacy. Our observations and discussions with staff supported this and we found that staff were knowledgeable about the systems in place to protect people.
We saw that a significant amount of work had gone into updating the provider's medication policy which was pending approval. Checks had been built into processes to reduce the risks of errors occurring. Many of the good practices in this policy had already been implemented by the service.
Our conversations with staff and people who use the service indicated that the support and training provided to staff was beneficial. One staff member said managers were, 'Very prompt at getting back to us'. People who used the service said that staff knew how to support them and they had no complaints about the care they received.
The people we spoke with knew how to raise any concerns or complaints but told us they hadn't had to do this. One person said, 'I am happy with how things are run'.
Monitoring by senior staff had ensured that staff followed support plans and respected the wishes of people using the service. There were sufficient skilled and experienced staff to safely meet the needs of people who use the service, and to enable the agency to accept new referrals. The standard of induction and subsequent training for staff was of a good standard. Unpaid staff who work at the service are known as co-workers or guest volunteers. We were told that they did not provide support with personal care.
In summary, this inspection found that the Oaklands Park Domiciliary Care service was providing a good standard of care and support to the people using their services.