Archived: Vineyard Care Limited

Updated 6 September 2017

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.

This was a comprehensive inspection. It took place on 21 July 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a supported living service to people living at a different location and we needed to be sure that someone would be at the office. One inspector carried out this inspection.

Before the inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included previous inspection reports, questionnaires we had asked people who used the service to complete and a provider information return. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection, we spoke with one person who used the service, the registered manager and the other permanent member of staff. Because we were only able to speak with one person, which means they could potentially be identified by this report, we asked for and gained the person’s consent to use quotes from them. We looked at the care plans of all three people who used the service, two staff files and documentation such as records of house meetings and staff rotas.

Updated 6 September 2017

Vineyard Care Limited provides personal care and support to adults with mental health needs and learning disabilities who live at a supported living service. This means people receive a set number of support hours based on their needs. The service is able to provide care and support for up to four people and there were three people using the service at the time of our inspection.

At the last inspection in May 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Staff were familiar with how to safeguard people from abuse. This was also reflected in people’s individual risk management plans. Each person had detailed risk assessments so staff knew how to care for them safely without unnecessarily restricting their freedom. Medicines were managed safely and people were supported to manage their own medicines where this could be done safely.

There were enough appropriately qualified staff to keep people safe. The manager carried out checks to help ensure staff were suitable. Staff received supervision, appraisals and training at a suitable frequency and the registered manager sought advice and support from reputable sources to help them keep up with current research and best practice in social care.

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. Staff obtained people’s consent before providing them with care and support.

People received the support they needed to maintain a healthy diet and to have enough to eat and drink. Staff supported people to make and attend appointments with healthcare services to support their physical and mental health.

Staff knew people well and had good relationships with them. People received the support they needed to make choices about their care on a daily basis. Staff promoted people’s privacy and dignity. People received support that helped them retain and develop their independence and to work towards achieving their goals.

People had care plans that were reviewed regularly to keep up to date with their needs and preferences. These were detailed to support staff in delivering care that met people’s needs and took into account their desires, preferences, cultural and religious needs and choices. There was a formal complaints policy and people also had opportunities to express concerns more informally.

People had very regular contact with the registered manager, who provided care to people directly and was able to monitor the quality of the service in this way. They discussed the service daily with staff and gave people regular opportunities to give feedback and suggest any improvements they wanted to be made.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.