Archived: Daisy House

Updated 30 August 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

This inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

Daisy House is a 'care home'. 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.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider would be in the office to support the inspection.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service and sought feedback from the local authority. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

One person living at the home had varying levels of communication and were unable to share their views and experiences, so we therefore used our Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not talk with us. We spent time observing the support provided to people in communal areas, at meal times and the interactions between people and staff. We spoke with one person who used the service and one relative about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with four members of staff including the registered manager and three support workers.

We reviewed a range of records. This included one person’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

Updated 30 August 2019

About the service

Daisy House is a residential care home providing personal care to two people. The service can support up to four people who are living with learning disabilities and/or autism.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

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

People felt safe and staff had good knowledge of safeguarding processes. There were enough staff to support people safely. Care plans and risk assessments were up to date and reviewed regularly. People received their medicines as expected.

People were looked after by kind and caring staff who knew them well. Positive behaviour support was used to good effect, so that when people became upset or agitated, staff used distraction techniques. People were encouraged to be involved in decisions relating to their care; they were treated with dignity and respect.

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; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People and their relatives were involved and consulted about their care and support needs. People had access to health and social care professionals as required. People were supported to access community service and to participate in activities of their choosing which met their needs.

The provider had systems in place to encourage and respond to any complaints or compliments from people or those close to them. There was regular involvement by families and relatives and external services.

Staff felt valued by the management team and staff meetings provided opportunities for staff to meet together. A system of audits monitored and measured all aspects of the home and were used to drive improvement.

The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or who might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.

As part of thematic review, we carried out a survey with the registered manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people.

The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way. No restrictive intervention practices were used.

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

Rating at last inspection.

This service was registered with us on 14 August 2018 and this is the first inspection.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.