Archived: Beck Farm House

Updated 10 June 2016

The inspection took place on the 13 May 2016 and was unannounced, which meant the registered provider did not know we would be visiting the service. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

We looked at notifications sent to us by the registered provider, which gave us information about how incidents and accidents were managed.

Prior to the inspection we spoke to the local safeguarding team, the local authority contracts and commissioning team and a health professional about their views of the service. There were no concerns expressed by these agencies.

Before the inspection, the registered provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The PIR was received in a timely way and was completed fully.

During our inspection we spoke with the regional manager as the registered manager was not available on the day. We spoke with three people who used the service, four members of staff and the registered manager, following the inspection.

We looked at the care records for two people who used the service and other important documentation relating to people who used the service such as, medication administration records (MARs). We looked at how the service used the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that when people were deprived of their liberty or assessed as lacking capacity to make their own decisions, best interest meetings were held in order to make important decisions on their behalf.

We looked at a selection of documentation relating to the management and running of the service. These included four staff recruitment files, the training record, the staff rota, minutes of meetings with staff, quality assurance audits, complaints management and maintenance of equipment.

Updated 10 June 2016

Beck farm house is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to seven young adults with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorder, who have a variety of complex needs. All bedrooms are for single occupancy with en suite facilities. There are also communal areas and a garden for people to use.

The service is located in the village of Barrow upon Humber with accessible transport links to larger towns and the city of Hull.

We undertook this unannounced inspection on the 13 May 2016. This is the first inspection since the new provider registered with the Care Quality Commission in July 2014. Three people were using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

We found staff were recruited safely and there were sufficient staff to support people. Staff had access to induction, training, supervision and appraisal which supported them to feel skilled and confident when providing care to people.

Staff received training in how to safeguard people from the risk of harm and abuse. They knew what to do if they had concerns and there were policies and procedures in place to guide them when reporting issues of potential abuse.

Records showed people had assessments of their needs and plans of care that were produced; these showed people and their relatives had been consulted and involved in this process. We observed people received care that was person-centred and care plans provided staff with information about how to support people in line with their personal wishes and preferences. People who used the service received continuous support from staff and needed to be supervised whenever they went out.

Risk assessments were completed to guide staff in how to minimise risks and potential harm. Staff took steps to minimise risks to people’s wellbeing without taking away people’s rights to make decisions. People lived in a safe environment and staff ensured equipment used within the service was regularly checked and maintained.

Positive interactions were observed between staff and the people they cared for. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and staff supported people to be independent and to make their own choices. Staff provided information to people and included them in decisions about their support and care. When people were assessed by staff as not having the capacity to make their own decisions, meetings were held with relevant others to discuss options and make decisions in the person’s best interest.

Staff had received training in legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the Mental Health Act 1983. They were aware of the need to gain consent when delivering care and support and what to do if people lacked capacity to agree to it.

People’s health and nutritional needs were met and they accessed professional advice and treatment from community services when required. Meals provided to people were varied and in line with risk management plans produced by dieticians. We observed drinks and snacks were served between meals. People who used the service received care in a person centred way, the care plans described their preferences for care and staff followed this guidance.

People who used the service were seen to engage in a number of activities both within the service and the local community. They were encouraged to pursue hobbies, social interests and to go on outings. Staff also supported people to maintain relationships with their families and friends.

There was a complaints procedure in place which was available in a suitable format which enabled people who used the service to access this if needed. People we spoke with knew how to make complaints and told us they had no concerns about raising issues with the staff team.

Staff told us the registered manager was visible and accessible within the service and they worked well together as a team.