This unannounced inspection of Cornview took place on 12 January 2016. The home provides accommodation and support for up to three people who have learning disabilities or autism. The primary aim at Cornview is to support people to lead a full and active life within their local community and continue with life-long learning and personal development. The home is a detached bungalow, within a residential area, which has been furnished to meet individual needs. At the time of the inspection there were three people living in the home. One person had their own en-suite bedroom which had been specially adapted to meet their needs. There were two other bathrooms located adjacent to other people’s bedrooms which they regarded to be theirs. There was a rear garden to which people had constant access.
The service did not have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The previous registered manager had just left the home, their last day being 31 December 2015. A registered manager from within the provider’s care group had already been appointed to replace them. The new home manager had already commenced the administrative process to become the registered manager of Cornview and was present during our inspection.
We observed staff provide reassurance when people were anxious and made them feel safe. One person required their own space and often sought tranquillity in their bedroom when their anxieties increased. On such occasions staff supported the person discreetly, ensuring they were safe in accordance with their support plan.
Staff had completed safeguarding training and had access to current guidance and legislation. Staff had identified and responded appropriately to potential safeguarding incidents to protect people from harm. People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse as incidents were reported and acted upon. People benefited from a safe service where staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities.
Staff were able to demonstrate their understanding of the risks to people’s health and welfare, and followed guidance to manage them safely. Risk assessments were in place to support people safely, whilst promoting their freedom of choice and independence. The provider managed environmental risks safely by ensuring all utilities were serviced regularly. The home manager and designated staff ensured the home complied with relevant legislation regarding fire safety, control of substances hazardous to health and infection control.
There were arrangements in place to keep people safe in an emergency. Staff understood these arrangements and knew where to access the information.
There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed with the necessary experience and skills to support people safely. The registered manager and positive support coordinator completed a daily staffing needs analysis in order to ensure that any changes in people’s needs were met by enough suitable staff.
Staff had undergone required pre-employment checks, to ensure people were protected from the risk of being supported by unsuitable staff. Staff had received an induction into their role, required training and regular supervision which prepared them to carry out their roles and responsibilities. People were cared for by sufficient numbers of well trained staff who were effectively supported by the registered manager and senior staff.
People received their medicines safely, in the way they preferred, administered by staff who had completed safe management of medicines training. Staff had their competency to administer medicines assessed annually by the registered manager. People received individualised care from staff who had the skills, knowledge and understanding needed to carry out their roles effectively.
People were supported to make their own decisions and choices. Staff supported people to identify their individual wishes and needs by using their individual and unique methods of communication. People’s human rights were protected by staff who demonstrated clear understanding of consent, mental capacity and deprivation of liberty guidance and legislation. Records demonstrated that a process of mental capacity assessment and best interest decisions promoted people’s safety and welfare when necessary.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interest and legally authorised under the MCA 2005. The application procedures for this in care homes are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The home was working within the principles of the MCA 2005. Paperwork associated with DoLS applications demonstrated the provider had taken the necessary action to ensure people’s human rights were recognised and protected.
Staff supported people to promote their independence. The provider had deployed sufficient staff to provide stimulating activities for people and to access the community and protect them from social isolation.
People had access to information about how to make a complaint, which was provided in an accessible format to meet their needs. Complaints and concerns were taken seriously
People were provided with nutritious food and drink, which met their dietary preferences and requirements. Where people had been identified to be at risk of choking staff supported them discreetly to minimise such risks, protecting them from harm and promoting their dignity.
People’s dignity and privacy were respected and supported by staff who were skilled in using individual’s specific communication methods. Staff were aware of changes in people’s needs, and took prompt action to promote their health and wellbeing by making referrals to relevant health professionals.
We observed people appeared relaxed and happy in the company of staff who they readily approached for company and support when required. People were treated with kindness and compassion in their day-to-day care by staff who knew them well. The relationships between staff and people receiving support demonstrated dignity and respect at all times.
and used as an opportunity to improve the service. There had been two complaints since our last inspection, which had been investigated thoroughly and resolved to the satisfaction of the complainants.
The previous registered manager, home manager and positive support coordinator had developed the staff team to consistently display appropriate values and behaviours towards people. Staff told us they enjoyed working at Cornview because the management team made them feel valued and part of a team where everyone’s opinion mattered.
The provider had established an effective system to assess and monitor the quality of care people received and to ensure people’s positive lifestyles were maintained and improved.
Records accurately reflected people’s needs and were up to date. Detailed care plans and risk assessments were fully completed and provided necessary guidance for staff to provide the required support to meet people’s needs.