White Horse Care Trust - 50 Cherry Orchard

Updated 17 October 2017

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.

This inspection took place on 11September 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

The provider had completed 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. During the inspection we checked if the information provided in the PIR was accurate.

We reviewed the information we held about the service. Providers are required to notify us about events and incidents that occur, including unexpected deaths, injuries to people receiving care and safeguarding matters. We refer to these as notifications. We reviewed the notifications the provider had sent us. We also contacted the commissioners of the service to ask them for their views.

Some of the people who use the service had communication and language difficulties and because of this we were unable to fully obtain each of their views on their experiences. We relied mainly on our observations of care provided and conversations with people's relatives and staff to form our judgements. We spoke with two people using the service who were able to share their experiences of the service. We also spoke with the registered manager, the area manager, the deputy manager and two members of staff. After the inspection we obtained feedback from one person's relative.

We pathway-tracked the care of four people. Pathway-tracking is a process which enables us to look in detail at the care received by each person at the home. We observed how staff cared for people across the course of the day, including mealtimes and times of medicines administration. We read other records relating to the operation of the service. These included risk assessments, training records, staff supervision records and management monitoring systems.

Updated 17 October 2017

This unannounced inspection took place on 12 September 2017. 50 Cherry Orchard provides accommodation and personal care for up to five people who have learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were four people living in the home.

At the last inspection on 17 February 2015, the service had been rated ‘good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘good’.

The service ensured people living in the home were safe. Risks to people had been identified, assessed and were managed safely. Staff were aware of their responsibilities and knew how to identify and report abuse. Medicines were administered safely. The registered provider followed safe and robust recruitment procedures. There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people safely.

People received effective care. Staff were supported to undertake training needed for their professional development, including nationally recognised qualifications. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals which enabled them to develop their understanding of good practice and to fulfil their roles effectively. Where some people were unable to make certain decisions about their care, the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were followed. People were supported to have their health needs met by health and social care professionals including their GP and dietitian. People were offered a healthy balanced diet and when people required support to eat and drink, this was provided in line with relevant professionals’ guidance.

The service continued to provide support in a caring way. Staff protected people's privacy and dignity and treated them with respect. People's requests for support or assistance were responded to promptly and kindly. People had developed positive relationships with staff and were treated in a caring and respectful manner. People were supported to be as independent as they possibly could be.

The service continued to be responsive to people's needs and ensured people were supported in a personalised way. Any changes in people's needs were addressed immediately. People had access to a variety of activities that met their individual needs. People’s relatives were aware of how to make a complaint. When concerns had been raised, they had been dealt with effectively to the complainants’ satisfaction.

The service was led by the registered manager who promoted a service that put people at the forefront of all the service did. Staff were valued and supported by the registered manager and provider. They were given appropriate responsibility which was continuously monitored and checked by the registered manager. A system to monitor, maintain and improve the quality of the service was in place.

Further information is in the detailed findings below: