We carried out a review of the data available to us about Peacock Hay 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 Peacock Hay, you can give feedback on this service.
Peacock Hay is a residential care home that was providing personal care to seven people who had a learning disability at the time of the inspection.
People’s experience of using this service:
People were supported by safely recruited staff who had the skills and knowledge to provide support in line with their needs. People were supported safely by staff to manage their risks, whilst promoting their independence. People were supported in a clean environment and their medicines were managed safely.
Effective care planning was in place which guided staff to provide support that met people’s diverse needs and in line with their preferences. 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.
Staff were kind and caring towards people and promoted choices in a way that people understood. People’s right to privacy was upheld. People were supported to maintain their independence and encouraged to learn new skills.
People were involved in interests and hobbies that met their preferences. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care, which meant people were supported in line with their preferences. There was an effective complaints system in place.
Systems were in place to monitor the service, which ensured that people’s risks were mitigated, and lessons were learnt when things went wrong. People, relatives and staff could approach the manager who acted on concerns raised to make improvements to people’s care. Staff and the manager worked with other agencies to ensure people’s health and wellbeing was maintained.
The service met the characteristics of Good in all areas; for more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection:
Good (report published 21 October 2016).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating of Good at the last inspection. We found the service continued to meet the characteristics of Good in all areas.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.
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.
Our last inspection took place on 24 March 2015. At this time, whilst we found the provider was not in breach of any regulations, improvements were needed to ensure there were enough consistent staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. We also reported that improvements were required to ensure that staff had a greater understanding of the law when supporting people who could not make their own decisions. We asked the provider to improve the way that people’s healthcare needs were being met and how complaints were responded to. We also reported that improvements were needed to ensure the service was well led. At this inspection, we found that improvements had been made in all these areas.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs, and the recruitment processes ensured that staff were safe to work with people. Staff knew people well and had good knowledge and understanding about protecting people from harm and abuse. Staff knew how to respond to concerns and were confident at doing this. Risks to individuals were assessed, managed and reviewed, and staff followed plans to protect people from harm. Medicines were managed safely to reduce the risks associated with them.
Staff understood how to support people who were unable to make decisions in some aspects of their lives. The provider ensured that any restrictions to people who could not make decisions about their care were done lawfully. People received support from staff who had the skills and knowledge needed to carry out their roles. People were supported to have access to health care services and to maintain a balanced diet.
Staff supported people in a caring and kind manner, and people had developed positive relationships with them. People were involved in making decisions about their day to day support, and staff promoted their independence. People’s [rivay was respected and their dignity promoted.
People knew how to raise any concerns or complaints, and the provider dealt with these in an open and timely manner. Feedback was encouraged from people who used the service and their families. They were encouraged to be involved with the planning of their care and people’s support was individual to them. People were able to choose how to spend their time and were supported to participate in activities they enjoyed.
The service was well managed and there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. This was through feedback from people who used the service, their relatives, staff and a programme of audits. The provider played an active role in quality assurance to ensure areas of poor practice could be identified so the service could improve.
We inspected Peacock Hay on 24 March 2015. The inspection was unannounced.
The provider is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to seven people with learning disabilities and/or mental health needs. At the time of our inspection, six people used the service.
There was no 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At our last inspection of the service on 10 September 2013, the provider was compliant with the Regulations we inspected against.
The service did not always have the adequate numbers of staff with the right skills to provide people with care. Many staff had left the service recently. Relatives, staff and other professionals told us that the increased use of temporary staff had impacted on care provision.
Staff understood what safeguarding was and knew what actions to take if abuse was suspected. People had risk assessments and management plans in place to guide staff on how they should be cared for. People were supported to have the medicines as prescribed.
Advice given by other health and social care professionals was not always followed. Relatives told us that their concerns raised about people’s care were not always responded to effectively.
People were supported by staff who understood their needs. People had access to adequate amount of food and drinks.
Legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were followed when people were unable to make certain decisions about their care and safety needs. This ensured that people’s liberties were not restricted unlawfully.
People’s care was tailored to meet their individual needs. Care plans detailed how people wished to be cared for and supported. People were supported to engage in activities which they enjoyed.
The service did not have a registered manager. Relatives, staff and other professionals told us this had impacted negatively in the management of the service.
Relatives told us that the provider had not always promoted an open culture. The provider had recently implemented meetings with relatives to obtain their views about services and involve them in service development plans. Staff, relatives and other professionals told us that improvements were being made and they were hopeful that these would be maintained.
There were five support workers on duty and they were supporting seven people who used the service. One of the support workers was in charge as acting senior support worker. The registered manager was not on duty at the time but we spoke with her over the telephone following the inspection where she provided further information to us.
The people who used the service were being supported to participate in activities of their choice. Staff were observed to be caring and understanding of people's needs, communicating with people according to their individual communication needs.
We reviewed individual care plans. New support plans were being introduced which reflected that care and support was centred around the individual person, taking account of their needs, preferences and choices. This helped to ensure that people received the right care and support at the right time and in the right way.
The provider maintained detailed records of the daily care and support given to each person and discussions with staff about this identified that the care and support was responsive and effective.
The environment was in need of some redecorating and refurbishment and the provider had plans in place to address this.
The staff team felt supported and that the home was well managed.
Some people who lived in the home had difficulty communicating. We spoke with people assisted by staff. We spoke with staff and the deputy manager. We checked care records and records about maintenance. We observed how people were looked after and supported.
In this report the name of a registered manager, Joanne Kirkham appears, who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.
The new manager who is in the process of registration was not present when we inspected. She has provided additional information following our inspection which informed our judgements.
There were seven people living at Peacock Hay, a learning disability service, when we visited on 19 January 2012. The visit was unannounced which meant the provider and the staff did not know we were coming.
We arrived mid morning and found the home very busy. People were eating breakfast, watching television and chatting with staff. Some people had chosen to have a lie in as they were not feeling well. The staff made us welcome, showed us the visitors policy, the fire procedure and introduced us to people living and working in the home.
There was a peripatetic manager at the home, this is a manager who is responsible for more than one service and therefore may not be present at all times. As this manager was new to Peacock Hay they had made contact with all the families of people using the service to introduce themselves and had offered to meet with any families who wished to do so.
We spoke with one person living at the home, staff, family members and health professionals who had visited the home. Staff members told us 'Best job I have ever had, I love coming here, love working with the people who live here,' and 'I absolutely love it here'. A family member told us 'The staff are very supportive.'
Some people who used the service had special communication needs and used a combination of words and sounds to express themselves. Where people were not able to express their views to us we observed interaction between people and staff.