We carried out a review of the data available to us about School Lane 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 School Lane, you can give feedback on this service.
At our last inspection on 11 and 15 April 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection on 7 November 2018 we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing 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.
The service had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the ‘Registering the Right Support’ and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service could live as ordinary a life as any citizen. These values were seen in practice at the home. For example, the building was like any other on the road with no signs to show it was a care home. Staff did not wear uniforms and people lived their lives in the ways they wanted.
People were kept safe from abuse and avoidable harm and could speak to staff if they had any concerns. All risks to people were assessed individually and there was detailed guidance available for staff. There were enough suitably trained and safely recruited staff to meet people’s needs. Medicines, including ‘as required’ medicines, were received, stored, administered and disposed of correctly. The home was maintained and clean. Staff understood how to prevent and control infection and all the necessary health and safety checks were completed to ensure a safe environment. Accidents and incidents were recorded, analysed and reviewed to identify any trends and to prevent future reoccurrence.
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 needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. People were supported with their goals and achieved good outcomes. There was a significant reduction in people’s behaviour that challenges and therefore the use of any physical intervention or use of medication for this. People’s care records had clear guidance for staff on how to be supported with their needs in the way they wanted and staff took the time to get to know people by chatting with them. People were offered choice around their food and were involved with planning, shopping and cooking their meals. People had access to the healthcare they needed.
People were supported in a relaxed way by caring staff who respected them and promoted their independence. People were involved with all aspects of their day to day support and the running of the home. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity and supported them to keep in contact with their families.
People received personalised care which was responsive to their needs. Support plans focused on outcomes for people and the support they needed to meet these outcomes and to be in control of their own lives. In line with ‘registering the right support’ people were part of their communities, they used local facilities and accessed community health and leisure facilities. People could raise any complaints they had. The complaints procedure was accessible and the provider actively sought feedback from people and their relatives.
The management team consisted of two deputy managers, a registered manager and the directors. People and relatives said the home was well managed. Staff understood the vision and values of the and felt supported by the management team. The managers promoted a positive, person centred and professional learning culture, had good oversight of the quality and safety of the, and clearly understood and managed any risks. Audits were completed which identified any improvements needed. There was good record keeping and monitoring to ensure people received the support they needed. People were engaged in the home and there was good communication within the staff team.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
We carried out this inspection on the 11 April 2016 and it was unannounced.
School Lane provides care and accommodation to up to three adults. The home offers 24 hour support to individuals with a learning disability, complex needs and / or a mental health diagnosis through a person centred approach. There were three people living at the home at the time of our inspection.
People were able to communicate their preferences regarding day to day activities. People we spoke with said that they were happy and that the staff looked after them well. There was a homely atmosphere within the home and happy banter between the staff and the people who lived there. The home has a registered manager and a manager who provides the day to day running of the home. Staff during the day were on the rota on a one to one basis with a manager working supernumerary. The registered manager also visited the home often and was always available. People went out in to the community most days if they wished to. Staff responded quickly and took time to listen to what people wanted. We observed staff supporting people and encouraging them to do things for themselves.
A registered manager was employed at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run.
CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager and staff showed that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
There were enough staff with the skills required to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited using procedures designed to protect people from the employment of unsuitable staff. Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and were supported through regular supervision and an annual appraisal so they were supported to carry out their roles.
It was evident by the way staff spoke to, and about the people that staff respected them. Staff encouraged and supported people to undertake daily living skills. People were supported to keep their rooms clean and tidy, but people were able to choose and if they did not want their room clean staff respected this. Staff had been trained to recognise and respond to the signs of abuse. Conversations with staff showed that they were confident about the action they would take if they suspected any abuse. Staff understood the whistle blowing policy and how it protected them if they needed to report a colleague for abusing someone. All staff had received the relevant training and could give examples of the type of abuse they may see in a residential home setting.
Staff were knowledgeable about the needs and requirements of people at the home. Staff involved people in planning their own care in formats that they were able to understand, for example pictorial formats. Staff supported them in making arrangements to meet their health needs. Families were also involved when appropriate.
Medicines were managed, stored, disposed of and administered safely. People received their medicines when they needed them and as prescribed.
People were provided with food and fluids that met their needs and preferences. People were able to choose what they wanted to eat and drink. Two people assisted with the shopping so they were able to see and choose what they may like to eat. Staff knew what people peoples like and dislikes were around food and were encouraging people to have a healthy diet.
There were risk assessments in place for the environment, and for each individual person who received care. Assessments identified people’s specific needs, and showed how risks could be minimised. People were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.
There were systems in place to review accidents and incidents and make any relevant improvements as a result.
There was a complaints procedure which gave people an explanation of how their concerns would be handled. This was available to people in a format that they could understand and it is in the Statement of Purpose which had been given to families when people came to live at the home.
People were given individual support to take part in their preferred hobbies and interests.
There were systems in place to obtain people’s views about the quality of the service and the care they received. People were listened to and their views were taken into account in the way the home was run.