We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Old School House 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 The Old School House, you can give feedback on this service.
The Old School House can accommodate up to four people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. Accommodation is based over two floors. The home is situated in the S5 area of Sheffield, South Yorkshire near local shops and public transport. At the time of this inspection, four people were living at The Old School House.
There was a manager at the service who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.
Our last inspection at The Old School House took place on 19 July 2017. Whilst the service was rated Good overall, we found one breach of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was a breach of Regulation 18: Staffing.
Following the last inspection, we asked the registered provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do, and by when, to improve the key question asking if the service was effective, to at least good.
This inspection took place on 9 July 2018 and was announced. We gave the registered manager 48 hours’ notice of our inspection. We did this because the registered manager is sometimes out of the office at the two other small care homes they manage, and people are often out. We needed to be sure the manager, people receiving support and staff would be available to meet and speak with us.
At this inspection, we found sufficient improvements had been made to meet the requirements of Regulation 18: Staffing, as all staff had been provided with an annual appraisal, as is necessary to enable them to carry out the duties they are employed to perform.
At our last inspection, we rated the service Good. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated Good.
People who lived at The Old School House communicated in various ways to tell us they felt safe. Family and friends spoke positively about the standard of care and support people received.
Staff were aware of their responsibilities in keeping people safe.
Policies and procedures for the safe management of medicines were in place.
There were robust recruitment procedures in operation to promote people’s safety.
Staff were provided with relevant training and supervision so they had the skills they needed to undertake their role.
People receiving support and their relatives felt staff had the right skills to do their job. They said staff were respectful and caring in their approach.
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.
People’s support plans contained relevant person centred information to inform staff. The support plans had been reviewed to ensure they were up to date.
People were confident in reporting concerns to the registered manager and felt they would be listened to.
There were quality assurance and audit processes in place to make sure the service was running well.
The service had a full range of policies and procedures available to staff.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
There was a manager at the service who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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.
Our last inspection at The Old School House took place 10 July 2015. The service was found to be meeting the requirements of the regulations we inspected at that time and overall we rated the service Good.
This inspection took place on 19 July 2017 and short notice was given. We told the registered manager two days before our visit that we would be coming. We did this because the manager is sometimes out of the office at the two other small care homes they manage, and people are often out. We needed to be sure the manager, people and staff would be available. On the day of our inspection there were four people living at The Old School House.
People who used the service communicated in various ways to tell us they felt safe living in the home. Family and friends spoke positively about the standard of care and support their family member received.
We found systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely.
Staff recruitment procedures ensured people’s safety was promoted.
There were sufficient numbers of staff provided to meet people’s needs.
Staff were provided with relevant training so they had the skills they needed to undertake their role.
The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Code of practice and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The registered provider’s policies and systems supported this practice.
Staff were provided with supervision on a regular basis. Some staff had not been provided with an annual appraisal for development and support.
People enjoyed the food provided, were given choices and were supported to receive adequate food and drink to remain healthy.
We found the home was well maintained. Bedrooms had been personalised and communal areas were comfortably furnished.
Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service. Support plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. People were involved in making decisions about their care.
We saw people participated in a range of daily activities both in and outside of the home which were meaningful and promoted independence.
People said they could speak with staff if they had any worries or concerns and they would be listened to.
There were some systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to.
People who used the service and their friends and family had been asked their opinion of the quality of the service via regular contact with the registered manager and provider.
We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
The Old School House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to four people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. The home is situated in Sheffield, South Yorkshire near local shops and public transport.
There was a manager at the service who was registered with CQC. 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.
Our last inspection at The Old School House took place on 28 January 2014. The home was found to be meeting the requirements of the regulations we inspected at that time.
This inspection took place on 13 April 2015 and short notice was given. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. We did this because the manager is sometimes out of the office at the two other small care homes they manage, and people are often out. We needed to be sure that the manager and staff would be available. On the day of our inspection there were two people living at The Old School House.
We were unable to speak in detail with one person living at The Old School House, but we saw they were happy in the company of staff and appeared content. The other person told us “It’s good here” and “They [staff] are nice.”
We spoke with one relative who had no concerns regarding the care their loved one received.
We found systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely
Staff were provided with relevant induction and training to make sure they had the right skills and knowledge for their role. Staff understood their role and what was expected of them. They were happy in their work, motivated and confident in the way the service was managed. The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Code of practice and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This helped to protect the rights of people who may not be able to make important decisions themselves.
People had access to a range of health care professionals to help maintain their health. A varied and nutritious diet was provided to people that took into account dietary needs and preferences so that health was promoted and choices could be respected.
People living at the home, and their relatives said that they could speak with staff if they had any worries or concerns and they would be listened to.
We saw people participated in a range of daily activities both in and outside of the home, which were meaningful and promoted independence.
There were some systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Some checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to. However, visits by the locality manager to audit and assure themselves of the quality of service delivery had not taken place at the frequency identified by the registered manager. People using the service and their relatives had been asked their opinion via surveys. The registered manager confirmed that once returned the results of these would be audited to identify any areas for improvement. Some policies available at the home were out of date and required reviewing. Staff meetings had not taken place on a regular basis to share information and provide and encourage an open culture in the home.
Care and support was delivered in a way that protected people from unlawful discrimination. People said staff respected and enabled them to maintain a healthy life style which included exercise and eating healthy food. People also told us that they attended the GP, dentist and hospital appointments with the help of staff.
An expert by experience joined us on the day of this inspection. They said that people told them they were supported well by staff and they were given choices as to what they wanted eat, what activities they wanted do, what time they got up in the morning and when they went to bed. People also told them that staff helped them make decisions.
There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. The home looked clean and smelt fresh on the day of our inspection. People were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment.
The complaints procedure was provided in a format that people understood. People were support by staff to make a comment or complaint and they were listened to. The expert by experience told us that staff were very supportive of the people who used the service. They told us that people had commented that they were able to discuss anything that wconcerned them without being afraid.
During this inspection we spoke with people who used the service, staff on duty, the newly appointed manager, the company psychologist and the operation's manager.
People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with individual's care plans. We observed how staff interacted with people who used the service, how the psychologist was supporting the people and staff. We checked people's care records to see the links between what was planned and what was delivered to them. We noted that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.
There was enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. We were informed by the new manager that they had full complement of staff.
People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff were confident in what they did and they said they received training and supervision to support them.
Two people were living at The Old School House. We visited the house in the morning to find out that people had gone out for the day so we returned in the evening to meet the people and the staff.
People said they liked going out and enjoyed the day. They said they usually attended a college and due to summer holidays they were having a break. They told us that they felt safe at the house and that staff were good.