Archived: Featherbed Lane

Updated 27 July 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We inspected Featherbed Lane on 11 June 2015. This was an announced inspection. We informed the registered provider at short notice (the day before) that we would be visiting to inspect. We did this because the location is a small care home for people who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed all of the information we held about the service.

The registered provider was not asked to complete a provider information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

At the time of our inspection visit there were five people who used the service. We spent time with all people who used the service and spoke with two people. Some people were unable to communicate with us; however we spent time with people in the communal areas and observed how staff interacted with people. We looked at all communal areas of the home and some bedrooms. After the inspection we spoke with two relatives of people who used the service.

During the visit, we also spoke with the registered manager and three support workers.

We also contacted the local authority to seek their views on the service provided. They did not report any concerns on the care or service received.

We did not use the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) during this inspection. SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We felt that it was not appropriate in such a small service where people could talk with us and such observations would be intrusive. Instead we used general observations of people’s care and support throughout our visit.

During the inspection we reviewed a range of records. This included two people’s care records, including care planning documentation and medication records. We also looked at three staff files, including staff recruitment and training records, records relating to the management of the service and a variety of policies and procedures developed and implemented by the registered provider.

Updated 27 July 2015

We inspected Featherbed Lane on 11 June 2015. This was an announced inspection. We informed the registered provider at short notice (the day before) that we would be visiting to inspect. We did this because the location is a small care home for people who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

Featherbed Lane is a purpose built bungalow that provides a care home for up to six people with a learning disability, some of whom may have physical disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were five people who used the service.

The service has 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.

People were protected by the services approach to safeguarding and whistle blowing. People who used the service told us they felt safe and could tell staff if they were unhappy. People who used the service told us that staff treated them well and they were happy with the care and service received. Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures, could describe what they would do if they thought somebody was being mistreated and said that management acted appropriately to any concerns brought to their attention.

Staff told us that they felt supported. There was a regular programme of staff supervision and appraisal in place. Records of supervision were detailed and showed that the registered manager had worked with staff to identify their personal and professional development.

Staff had been trained and had the skills and knowledge to provide support to the people they cared for. Where there were gaps in training this had been identified by the registered manager and booked. There was enough staff on duty to provide support and ensure that their needs were met.

The registered manager demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) however, some staff had limited understanding. After the inspection the registered manager booked MCA training for staff. Appropriate documentation was available within people’s care records. This included capacity assessments, DoLS authorisations and best interest decisions.

We found that safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. This included obtaining references from previous employers to show staff employed were safe to work with vulnerable people.

Appropriate systems were in place for the management of medicines so that people received their medicines safely.

People who used the service and relatives we spoke with told us that staff were caring and treated people well, respected their privacy and encouraged their independence. Our observations showed staff and people who used the service were comfortable together and interacting in a friendly and caring way.

People’s needs were assessed and their care needs planned in a person centred way. We saw that risks identified with care and support had been identified and included within the care and support plans.

People’s nutritional needs were met, with people being involved in shopping and decisions about meals. People who used the service told us that they got enough to eat and drink and that staff asked what people wanted. However nutritional assessments had not been completed on a regular basis.

People were supported to maintain their health, including access to specialist health and social care practitioners when needed. People who used the service had regular appointments with the community nursing team and social care professionals. Other professionals were also involved in people’s care such as chiropodists, opticians, nurses, GPs, speech and language therapists and dentists.

People’s independence was encouraged and their hobbies and leisure interests were individually assessed. There was a plentiful supply of activities both in and out of the home for people to take part in. Staff encouraged and supported people to access activities within the community. People had holidays.

The registered provider had a system in place for responding to people’s concerns and complaints. People and relatives told us they knew how to complain and felt confident that staff would respond and take action to support them. People and relatives we spoke with did not raise any complaints or concerns about the service.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Staff told us that the service had an open, inclusive and positive culture.