Sheepwalk House

Updated 22 August 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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 comprehensive inspection took place on the 17 July 2018 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

The inspection was informed by information we held about the service. Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This also included statutory notifications the provider had sent us. A statutory notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to send to us by law. We considered the last inspection report and information that had been sent to us by commissioners who had a contract with the service. Commissioners are people who work to find appropriate care and support services which are paid for by the local authority or by a health clinical commissioning group. We checked whether Healthwatch Nottinghamshire had received any feedback about the service. Healthwatch Nottinghamshire are an independent organisation that represents people using health and social care services.

During the inspection, we were unable to speak with people to gain their views about the service due to their communication needs. However, we spent time in the company of people and used observations of how staff engaged with people to help us understand people’s experiences.

We spoke with the registered manager, operations manager and two support workers. We spoke with two relatives by telephone to gain their views on the service. In addition, we spoke with one health and one social care professional who had been involved in the care of two people living at Sheepwalk House. We also looked at the relevant parts of three people’s care plans. We checked that the care they received matched the information in their records. We reviewed other records relating to the care people received and how the service was managed. This included risk assessments, quality assurance checks, medicines records, staff training and policies and procedures.

Updated 22 August 2018

We inspected the service on 17 July 2018. The inspection was unannounced.

People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Sheepwalk House accommodates up to 5 people with a learning disability or with an autistic spectrum disorder in one house. On the day of our inspection, 4 people were using the service.

The care service 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.

At the last inspection on 12 February 2016, the service was rated ‘Good’ overall and requires improvement within effective. This was because of improvements required to staff training and supervision. At this inspection, improvements had been made in training and an action plan was in place to ensure supervisions were held at consistent frequencies. We found the evidence continued to support an overall rating of Good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People felt safe at the service and staff had been trained and understood what steps to take to safeguard people from abuse or poor practice. Pre-employment checks were completed to help the provider recruit staff who were suitable to work in a care environment. Medicines were managed safely and steps were taken to help protect against the risks of infection. People were cared for by sufficient staff and incidents were analysed to help inform improvements.

Staff were trained and were knowledgeable on people’s care needs. People had choice and control over their lives and staff cared for people in the least restrictive way possible. The provider understood their responsibility to ensure people could make decisions about their care or be supported by others to make decisions in their best interests. The premises had been adapted to meet people’s needs and support their interests. Staff felt well supported and further steps were planned to ensure supervision meetings were held at consistent frequencies. People’s nutritional and hydration needs were met and received care from other professionals to help maintain good health.

Staff had developed positive relationships with people and were kind and caring in their interactions with people. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and their independence promoted. People were supported to share their views and be involved in their care. Relatives and health and social care professionals were involved with planning care to help ensure the best outcomes for people.

People received personalised and responsive care as staff knew how to meet people’s needs. People had active lifestyles and were able to develop and maintain their hobbies and interests, both at home and in the local community. There were processes in place for people to raise any complaints and express their views and opinions about the service provided.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service and enable the provider to identify and drive improvement. Relatives and staff were positive about the management team and the open and inclusive management style. The provider completed robust audits of the performance of the service and an ongoing action plan that showed how the service was continually improving.