Perry Cottage

About the service

Perry Cottage is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to 2 people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 2 people. The home is located in the rural hamlet of Fluxton and is near the farm where people worked in the day. The registered manager felt their registration as a care home did not best reflect the service provision. They were considering changing their registration and even considering whether or not they needed to be registered with CQC at all. They were not planning to expand their service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Right Support:

Staff relationships with people were caring and supportive. People were supported to develop new skills and gain independence.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests.

One family member told us “We’re so pleased” they didn’t need to worry about their relative because, “Whatever [person’s name] needs [person’s name] will receive it.”

Right Care:

People’s risk assessments and care plans were person-centred which meant support focused on people’s quality of life outcomes. These outcomes were monitored and adapted as a person went through their life. People told us they loved living at the home and enjoyed all the opportunities available to them.

People’s diversity, equality and human rights were respected.

Right Culture:

The registered manager promoted a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering, and which achieved good outcomes for people. Staff put people’s needs and wishes at the heart of everything they did.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (01 August 2016).

Why we inspected

The purpose of this inspection was to check certain areas of quality and safety had remained good since our last inspection. The overall rating for the service has not changed following this targeted inspection and remains good.

Targeted inspections do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Perry Cottage provides accommodation with personal care for a maximum of four adults who have a learning disability diagnosis.

The home is located in the rural hamlet of Fluxton, which is near Ottery Saint Mary in Devon. The house is situated on a farm. One of the providers is also the registered manager and both providers work at the home. 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.

The home had previously been inspected in November 2013 and had met all the standards inspected.

At the time of our inspection, four people were living at Perry Cottage, all of whom had been resident at the home for a number of years. One person living in the home was a relative of the provider.

The home was normally staffed by the two providers, although they had employed a relative to run an activity session for one morning a week. There was sufficient staffing to meet people’s needs and promote their choices. The providers had a clear vision for the home and ensured they promoted independence and choice with all the people living there. There was strong evidence of very positive relationships between everyone in Perry Cottage with lots of laughter and banter going on through the inspection.

All four people living at Perry Cottage said they were happy and liked living in the home. The home had a very relaxed, homely feel. People moved freely around all parts of the home and had personalised their bedrooms to suit their own tastes. People and their relatives described the home as an extended family. Throughout the inspection it was obvious that not only did people know the providers, they also knew the provider’s family. People had been invited to the provider’s family celebrations including two weddings.

Each person had a detailed care record. Documents within the care records described the risks to people and how people were supported to minimise these risks. Both providers understood their responsibilities with respect to safeguarding vulnerable adults. Two people who had regular prescribed medicines administered the medicines themselves. The provider supported them to be as independent as possible with this, by checking that the administration had been carried out correctly.

Care records described appointments with health professionals and what the outcomes of these appointments were. There was evidence that the advice received was acted on.

The providers understood their responsibilities in relation to acting within the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People had been assessed in terms of their capacity to make certain decisions, but wherever possible the providers encouraged people to be independent. The provider said they planned to discuss with the local authorities whether it was necessary to apply for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations for any of the people at Perry Cottage.

People were provided with a balanced diet and received sufficient food and drink to ensure their nutritional needs were met. People said they liked the food and also enjoyed getting involved in meal preparation.

People did a number of varied activities including working on the farm, going to clubs and social events as well as being involved in music, art and cooking sessions in the home. People clearly enjoyed these activities and were enthusiastic about them when describing what they did.

Checks to ensure the safety and quality of the home, equipment and the services provided were undertaken regularly. Where an issue was identified, this was addressed in a timely manner.

We found that the home was well maintained with each person having their own room decorated and furnished to their taste. People told us that they go on holiday every year and also visit their families. People also did a weekly art session and attended a social club.

The provider ensured that care plans were reviewed every year and that, when needed, they arranged appointments for people with other health and social care providers.

We found evidence that the provider had an understanding of how to safeguard adults and knew what to do when an issue arose. We found evidence that there was sufficient staff with the right skills and experience at the home and systems in place to address their training needs.

We also found evidence that there was a complaints policy and procedures in place, although both the provider and the people living at Perry Cottage said it had never needed to be used.

People's consent to care was gained and we saw evidence that people received the care they needed. Staff had training in the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLS) to ensure people's rights were protected.

We saw up to date plans of care which considered individual physical, emotional and mental health care needs. We saw risk assessments and that all documentation was kept up to date to ensure people had their changing needs met. We saw that the home consulted with specialists to make sure people had the benefit of expert advice.

The home was safe and suitably designed to meet the needs of those who lived there.

The family did not employ any staff, (we have however referred to the family as staff through the report). We saw that Criminal Records Bureau checks had been completed for all family who had contact with people who lived at the home. Records did not contain any information to suggest that anyone was unsuitable to work with vulnerable people.

We saw that the home had an effective system to assess and monitor the quality of service.