Valley House in the Vineyard Limited

Updated 27 November 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

Valley House in the Vineyard Limited is a ‘care home.’ People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safe care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because the service is small, and people are often out and we wanted to be sure there would be people at the home to speak with us.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with eight people who used the service. We spoke with four members of staff including the deputy manager, two senior care workers and two care workers. We 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.

We reviewed a range of records including two people’s care plans and several medication records. We looked at staff files in relation to recruitment and supervision and a variety of records relating to the management of the service for example, policies, procedures and audit processes. We pathway tracked two people. This is where we check that the records for people match the support they receive from the service.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the deputy manager to validate the evidence found. We spoke to the registered manager who was on leave at the time of the inspection itself. We spoke with two relatives and two professionals who have regular contact with the service.

Updated 27 November 2019

About the service

Valley House in the Vineyard Limited is a residential home providing personal care for up to eight people living with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection eight people were living there, most of whom had been there for several years.

Valley House is in a rural area and is set within the grounds of a vineyard. The home has two floors with bedrooms on each floor and communal areas on the ground floor. It has a garden and an outside area that is shared with the vineyard that people can use.

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 that 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 received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using the service and what we found

People, their relatives and professionals told us people were safe and our observations confirmed this. Staff knew people well and understood individual care and support needs. Staff understood the importance of safeguarding and were able to tell us what they would do if they had concerns about a person’s wellbeing. Risk assessments were in place and specific to people’s needs. Staff were recruited safely and people living at the service took part in the interview process. There were always enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. The induction process was robust. Few medicines were used at the home but those that were, were ordered, stored, provided and disposed of safely.

People were supported to have control and to have choice in all aspects of their lives. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way and in their best interests. Staff received regular, relevant training and were able to select some courses that they felt would help them meet the needs of people. This included mental capacity and safeguarding training. People’s nutritional needs were met, and people were supported to receive support from health and social care professionals when required.

Staff were caring and understanding towards people. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected and promoted. People’s differences under the Equalities Act 2000 were explored, documented and respected.

Support for people was person-centred and focussed on individual’s needs. Care plans were reviewed with people, their relatives and professionals. People had routines inside and outside of the home. A comprehensive range of activities was available to people and strong links had been established with the local community. Although no complaints had been received, there was a complaints policy and people and their relatives knew how to raise concerns.

The registered manager and deputy manager were both well thought of by people, relatives and professionals. The deputy manager was present at the inspection and we saw people speaking with him and responding to him in a positive way. Staff were positive about the managers and the home. One staff member said, “I want to stay here until I retire. I’ve worked in care all my life. This is like home from home.” Audit processes were in place and feedback was sought from people, staff, relatives and professionals.

The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and the potential drivers for improvement.

As part of this thematic review, we carried out a survey with the deputy manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people. The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way. The home did not use any restraint measures.

For more details, see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at the last inspection

The last rating for this service was good. (Published 26 January 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.