The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: SENSE Applemead

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Station Road, Whimple, Exeter, Devon, EX5 2QH (01404) 823332

Provided and run by:
Sense

All Inspections

21 October 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 21 October 2015 and was unannounced. We last inspected the service on 19 November 2013, and found the service was compliant with the standards inspected and there were no breaches of regulations.

Applemead is a small care home registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to five deafblind people. The provider is Sense, a national charity. Four people lived at the service when we visited.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Not everyone was able to verbally share with us their experiences of life at the home. This was because of people’s complex needs. We therefore used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

People were supported by staff who were compassionate and kind. Staff spoke about people as individuals and care was personalised to meet their needs. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted by staff who demonstrated a positive regard for each person. Staff demonstrated people mattered in their interactions with them and how they spoke about them.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s care needs, had qualifications in care and received regular training and updating. Staff were experienced and skilled at communicating effectively with the deafblind people they supported using a variety of methods. Staff knew people well and could recognise what people were trying to communicate through gestures, behaviours and vocal sounds.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They knew how to make sure people, who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves, had their legal rights protected. Where people lacked capacity, staff involved relatives and health and social care professionals in making decisions about the person in their ‘best interest.’

People were supported to maintain their health and receive on going healthcare support. They had regular health checks by their local GP who visited them at home and regular dental checks. Health professionals said staff made timely referrals to health professionals to seek advice and implemented their recommendations. This included specialist services such as mental health services, speech and language and occupational therapies as well as physiotherapy.

Risks assessment for individuals and the environment were undertaken and steps identified to reduce risks as much as possible. The environment of the home was suitably adapted for the sensory needs of people with a visual impairment and those with physical disabilities.

Staff were aware of signs of abuse and knew how to report concerns, any concerns reported were investigated. A robust recruitment process was in place to make sure people were cared for by suitable staff.

Relatives, professionals and staff had confidence in the leadership and management at the home. Staff worked well together as a team and the home was organised and well run. The provider had a range of internal and external quality monitoring systems in place, which were well established. There was evidence of making continuous improvements in response to people’s feedback, the findings of audits, and learning lessons following accidents and incidents.

19 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We met the five people living at the home, who had all lived there for several years. As most were unable to give us their views easily because of their needs, we also observed how people spent their day. This included some of the support they received from staff, how they spent their time and how they managed in the environment provided. We spoke with a community health professional who supported people at the home, as well as with four staff and the registered manager.

We found care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's welfare. There were detailed person centred care plans for each person, with related risk assessments. These were based on their diverse needs and regularly reviewed. We observed that people were well understood and responded to by staff in line with their care plans. Individuals were protected against risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements for managing these.

People had varied and positive experiences in their daily lives. There were enough experienced staff to enable people to be as active and independent as possible, with availability of transport helpful in achieving this.

The home was clean, with some of the people who lived in the home helping to achieve this through their daily living skills. People and others at the home were protected against the risks of unsuitable premises through monitoring, maintenance and adaptation of the environment.

28 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We met with five people who lived at the home. Some people who lived there could not communicate easily with us so we observed staff interaction with those people in communal areas throughout the day. We spoke with two relatives and a visiting health professional and asked them about people's care and welfare.

One relative said 'I am absolutely happy with the care being given'. Another relative said 'I have regular contact with the home and am very happy with everything, staff encourage and support people who live there to work to their full potential'. One health professional who regularly visits the home said 'Applemead is the sort of place I take a great deal of pleasure in visiting, staff always seem very committed to the people who live there'.

We looked at care records for two people and spoke with five staff and asked them about people's care needs and any potential risk factors. We found that people's needs were well known and we found detailed care plans were in place to meet those needs, which were regularly reviewed and updated. People's daily records showed they had busy and interesting lives and were supported as individuals and to be as independent as possible. On the day we visited one person was out enjoying a walk along the beach and another had gone shopping in preparation for their birthday celebrations.

The provider was compliant with the five essential standards we inspected.

23 February 2012

During a routine inspection

We (the Care Quality Commission) carried out an unannounced inspection on 23 February 2012 to Applemead. We spent a day at the service talking to people who lived there, to staff caring for them, observing care and reading records. We met the five people who lived at the home and looked in detail at the care given to two people. Some people we met were unable to communicate with us so we used a specific way of observing their care to help to understand their experience of living in the home. We spoke to five staff and the registered manager about how the home met people's needs. We asked two visiting health professionals and a therapist who visited the home regularly about their experiences of working with the home.

People who lived there and the visiting health professionals we spoke to were very positive about the caring attitudes of staff. We found that care workers treated people with dignity and respect and were knowledgeable about people's care needs. The records seen showed detailed care plans and risk assessments were in place to meet people's needs which were reviewed and updated regularly as needed.

We observed staff interactions with people and saw that people's views were listened to and respected and people were supported to be as independent as possible. We heard about the wide variety of activities that were available to people who lived at the home. These included swimming, horse riding, shopping trips, meals out, and trips to various amusement parks. Everyone was supported to go on holiday and keep in touch with friends and family members.

Care workers we spoke to were knowledgeable about safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse and appropriate policies and systems were in place to support this.

Applemead showed us a variety of methods through which they monitored the quality of care provided. Detailed risks assessments and care plans were in place to minimise the risks to people and keep them safe. The home undertook regular checks of health and safety systems, medicines management and fire checks. The home also undertook individual meetings with each with each person monthly to involve them in planning their care. The service demonstrated how they improved the service as a result of feedback from people, from staff and in response to incidents. We found that Applemead were compliant with all five outcomes we inspected.