We carried out a review of the data available to us about Vange Place 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 Vange Place, you can give feedback on this service.
This inspection took place on 22 and 26 March 2018. The provider was given up to 48 hours’ notice because it is a small service and we wanted to be certain the registered manager and key staff would be available on the day of our inspection. We also wanted to give them sufficient time to seek agreements with people so that we could visit them in their homes to find out their experiences of the service.
At our last inspection in October 2015, we rated the service as ‘Good’ overall. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the same rating and the service continued to meet all the fundamental standards of quality and safety. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going 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.
Risk assessments were completed to assess the potential risk of harm to people while receiving care and support. Staff drew up plans of support with people to lessen these risks. Risk assessments and associated plans of support were kept under regular review.
There were sufficient staff to ensure that people received their support when they needed it. Staff were well supported and had the skills and training needed to deliver care to a good standard. Staff had been recruited safely. People’s health and social care needs were met. Staff ensured people had food that met their individual preferences and their diverse needs.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People were treated as unique individuals by staff. The policies and systems in place supported this practice. Support plans were developed with people and centred on their needs and choices.
Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to support and enable people to have an effective choice about how they lived their lives.
Staff were caring, and people were treated with kindness and respect. People's privacy was respected, and their dignity and independence promoted.
An effective quality assurance survey took place regularly. The service delivered had been regularly reviewed through a range of internal audits.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The inspection took place on 29 October 2015 and was announced. The inspection was announced as this domiciliary care agency supports people in supported living settings and we wanted to make sure that someone would be available when we visited.
Vange Place supports people with a Learning disability and this support includes support with personal care, shopping, domestic and social activities. On the day of our visit there were five people using the domiciliary service in two settings.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. 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 in their home. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and were clear about the whistleblowing and safeguarding processes.
Risks were identified and steps taken to minimise the impact on individuals. People were involved in decision making about risks and there were clear arrangements in place for emergencies.
People told us they received support from a stable staff team who knew them well. They were clear about how and when they were supported and we saw that when people’s needs changed there were processes in place to review the levels of support. Recruitment processes were thorough and offered protection to people.
New staff received an induction for the role and ongoing training was in place to further develop staff’s knowledge and skills. Staff told us they were well supported through supervision and staff meetings.
Staff had a good understanding of consent and the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. People were supported to cook and eat a balanced diet. Information was maintained about people’s health care needs, and people were supported to access ongoing support.
People were comfortable when staff were present and interactions were caring and respectful. Independence was promoted and people were provided with information in a way that they could understand.
Care plans identified peoples preferences and care was delivered in a person centred way. People were encouraged to maintain relationships with friends and family and follow a range of interests.
There was a positive culture, people told us that they were happy and had a say in how the service was run. Staff were well motivated and were encouraged to reflect on how care was provided and contribute to the service development. The provider had a quality assurance system in place to drive improvement.
We saw that people's health and care needs were met. We looked at people's care plans and saw that they were very detailed and person centred and contained information about managing risks. We saw that people were very involved with their plans.
We looked at staffing and saw that there were enough staff to meet the needs of the people using the service. The people we spoke with were very positive about the staff. One person told us " If I have a problem I ask my keyworker. The staff always help me". The staff had received training which meant they could support people with their needs and knew how to recognize the signs of abuse and knew what to do if they thought someone was being abused.
The service asked the people living there and their relatives to give them feedback about the quality of the service so it could improve.