Archived: Churchview and Larklands Care Home

This inspection visit took place on 8 Jan 2018 and was unannounced. Churchview and Larklands is a care service. It has 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 can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Churchview and Larklands is set in Ilkeston. The accommodation is provided in two bungalows situated on one site with an enclosed secure garden which joins the two buildings. Each bungalow is independent with their own kitchen, living space and bedrooms to support five people in each home. At the time of our inspection ten people were being supported by staff to live in the home.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People continued to receive safe care. All staff were recruited to ensure that they were safe to work with people. Staff were allocated to meet individual’s needs. Risk assessments had been completed to reflect and consider how to reduce any risks. Medicines had been managed safety and staff had received training to enable them to be responsive with specialist medicine when required. People were protected from the risk of harm and lessons were learnt from when mistakes occurred.

The care that people received continued to be effective. They had been supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Staff felt supported by the level of training they received, which developed skills and career opportunities. People had a choice of meals and their dietary needs had been met. The environment had been adapted to suit people’s needs and individual choices for their personal space. Health professionals had been involved in the development of peoples care and guidance was provided and followed.

People continued to have positive relationships with the staff who were caring and treated people with respect and kindness. Staff knew people well and were able to balance this knowledge to consider the level of support people required to reflect personal space and dignity in meeting their needs.

The home continued to provide a responsive approach to people’s needs. People were able to access activities which provided stimulation and opportunities to develop their interests and hobbies. The care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed to reflect any changes or lifestyle discoveries. Information was available to people and relatives if they wished to raise a concern. We saw when concerns had been raised they had been addressed and measures put in place to reduce the situation reoccurring.

The management of the home remains good. There was a homely feel to the atmosphere and a positive approach to ensuring the bungalows reflected peoples own wishes. The registered manager analysed information about the quality and safety of the service and used it to drive improvements. People’s feedback had been obtained. The registered manager understood their registration and sent us information about the home. They had conspicuously displayed their rating at the home and on their website.

There was 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.

People told us they felt safe and that staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse and what they needed do to protect people from abuse. Risks to individuals and the environment were identified and managed. Risk assessments were centred on the needs of the individual, to enable people to live as safely and independently as possible. Staff sought people’s consent before providing any care and support. They were knowledgeable about the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 legislation.

People received their medicine in accordance with their needs and staff had a good understanding when additional medicine was required to maintain people’s health. Health care professionals were involved in people’s on-going health needs and the staff know how to make referrals to access additional support then required.

People were treated with kindness and compassion and their privacy was respected. The staff understood and promoted people’s individual care needs. . Staffing arrangements ensured there were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs. The recruitment systems ensured that staff had the right skills, knowledge and experience and were suitable to work with people using the service.

The management team were committed to providing a good quality service. Systems and processes were in place to monitor the service and make improvements where they could. The home completed regular audits and used these to improve quality or minimise risks. Regular contact with relatives and professionals supporting people using the service, to check they were satisfied with their care packages. Relatives knew how to raise any complaints or concerns and these had been dealt with in accordance with the provider’s complaints procedure.

From our observations throughout the day we saw that staff had a good understanding of people's support needs. The relationship between staff and the people using the service was positive and staff demonstrated they were able to support people in a safe way which met their needs and preferences.

The views of people's family members confirmed they were happy with the support provided to their relatives.

We found that the support provided to each person was individualised and the meals available were based on people's dietary requirements and preferences. People's nutritional needs were monitored appropriately and professional advice and guidance was sought when needed.

People received their medication as prescribed and staff had undertaken the appropriate training to ensure this was done in a safe way.

Records seen demonstrated that robust recruitment practices were followed to ensure the staff employed were suitable to work with the people using the service.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of services provided and further develop them as required; this included obtaining the views of people's representatives.