We carried out a review of the data available to us about Foxglove Care Limited - 32 Rivelin Park 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 Foxglove Care Limited - 32 Rivelin Park, you can give feedback on this service.
Foxglove Care Limited – 32 Rivelin Park is a small residential care home, in a residential area which is close to local shops and amenities. The service is registered to provide support to two younger adults who may be living with a physical disability, learning disability and/or autism. The service was supporting two people at the time of our inspection.
The service demonstrated 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 were kept safe from avoidable harm and abuse and their medicines were administered appropriately. Staff were supported in their roles and had the relevant skills and training to meet people’s needs.
People were happy with the care and support which was provided by a dedicated and consistent staff team. Staff were kind and had developed positive relationships with people. Staff provided appropriate support, ensured people accessed appropriate healthcare services and followed professional advice. People were supported to eat a healthy, balanced diet.
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 accessed a wide variety of meaningful activities and were supported to maintain their relationships with family and friends.
Quality assurance systems had maintained the quality and safety of the service and there was a positive supportive culture.
People’s independence was promoted as staff encouraged choice, control and inclusion in the local community in line with the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This enabled people who use the service to develop their skills and independence, achieve positive outcomes and live as full a life as possible.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the Care Quality Commission (CQC) website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 13 July 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
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.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this announced inspection on 17 May 2017 we found the service remained Good.
There was a registered manager employed at the service.
There were safeguarding procedures in place. Staff were knowledgeable about what action they should take if abuse was suspected. The local authority informed us there were no on-going matters regarding the service.
Medicines were managed safely.
Recruitment checks were robust. There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Records confirmed that training was available to ensure staff were suitably skilled. Staff were supported though supervision.
People's nutritional needs were met and they were supported to access healthcare services when required.
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.
We observed positive interactions between staff and people who lived at the service. Staff promoted people's privacy and dignity. There were systems in place to ensure people were involved in their care and support.
Personalised care plans were in place for people. Arrangements for social activities met people’s individual needs.
There was a complaints procedure in place. No complaints had been received since our last inspection.
There was an effective quality assurance system. Audits and checks were carried out to monitor all aspects of the service. Action plans were developed to highlight any areas which required improvement. Staff were positive about working for the provider and the registered manager. They said they felt valued and enjoyed working at the service.
32 Rivelin Park is situated in one of the Kingswood housing developments just to the north of Kingston Upon Hull. The house is a three-storey property with a utility room, a small cloak/toilet and a small office and lounge on the ground floor. There is a lounge and a dining room on the first floor, and two single bedrooms [one with en-suite shower and toilet] and a bathroom and bedroom on the second floor. There is a garden to the rear of the house. It is registered with the Care Quality Commission [CQC] for a maximum of two people.
We undertook this inspection on 23 and 24 March 2015 and the inspection was unannounced, which meant the registered provider did not know we would be visiting the service. The service was last inspected on 13 November 2013 and was meeting all the regulations assessed during the inspection.
The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC); they had been registered since August 2010. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manager the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the registered provider.
Personalised programmes of care enabled people to learn to live as independently as possible with the minimum of support.
Staffing levels were structured to meet the individual needs of the people who used the service. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff received training and support to enable them to carry out their work in a skilled and confident way.
Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff commenced work.
People were able to discuss their health needs with staff and had contact with their GP, attend routine health checks and access other health professionals as required. The service made appropriate and timely referrals to healthcare professionals and their recommendations were followed.
People’s nutritional and dietary needs had been assessed and people were supported to plan, shop for ingredients and prepare their own meals. The people we spoke with told us the choice and quality of food available was very good.
CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. DoLS are a code of practice to supplement the main Mental Capacity Act 2005. These safeguards protect the rights of adults by ensuring if there are restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed by appropriately trained professionals. The registered manager had good understanding about these and when these should be applied. Documentation in people’s care plans showed that when decisions had been made about a person’s care, when they lacked capacity, decisions had been made in the person’s best interests.
People who used the service were supported to make decisions about aspects of their daily lives.
Each person had an activity plan which had been discussed and arranged with them at their weekly meetings. Activities undertaken included; holidays, day trips, shopping, gardening, going to discos and the cinema.
People lived in a safe environment. Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and they ensured equipment used in the service was regularly checked and maintained. Risk assessments were carried out and staff took steps to minimise risks without taking away people’s rights to make decisions.
The registered provider had policies and systems in place to manage risks, safeguard vulnerable people from abuse and for the safe handling of medicines. Medicines were ordered, stored administered and disposed of safely. Only member of staff who had received training in the safe handling of medicines was involved in the administration of medicines.
Care plans had been developed to provide guidance for staff to support the positive management of behaviours that may challenge the service and others. This guidance supported staff to provide a consistent approach to situations that may be presented, which protected people’s dignity and rights.
People who used the service spoke positively about the care they received. They told us, comments and complaints were responded to appropriately and there were systems in place to seek feedback from them and their relatives about the service provided. A complaints policy was in place which was also available in easy read format to make it more accessible for the people who used the service. We saw that when complaints had been made, appropriate action had been taken to resolve these.
A quality monitoring system was in place that consisted of stakeholder surveys, reviews, assessments and audits.
During our visit one of the people who used the service was attending their annual care review. The meeting was attended by the person who used the service, the relative of the person, team leader, key care worker and care co-ordinator. All the attendees gave signed consent to attend the meeting including CQC. This ensured that any decisions made were in the person's best interest.
Records we looked at included instructions and information from other health care professionals for example; best interest meetings, mental capacity assessments carried out by the local authority, GP and dentist appointments. We saw that these were directly entered into a person's care plan record.
The first floor consisted of a comfortable main lounge area and kitchen and dining area. The decoration was pleasant and tidy. All areas of the property were free from clutter and obstructions which meant that people were protected from trip hazards and self-harm.
The complaints procedure provided easy to understand steps by asking people who used the service if they were feeling angry, worried or sad. It included pictorial formats for ease of understanding.
One of the people who used the service told us that; 'I now have a job in a charity shop and help them make money by helping out with sales.' People's comments also included: 'Staff are very good and I feel very safe here.' 'Staff treat me with respect and I can get up and go to bed what time I like.'
Relatives we spoke with commented positively about the care and support their relative received. Comments included: 'Staff listen to my views and are really good and I am involved with decisions about care." Further comments received from a relative included: "The service is a god send for my daughter and she has made a lot of progress.' and 'She is calm and relaxed and she benefits greatly from that and the service constantly consults with me.'
We spoke with two members of staff and they were able to describe the procedures in place to report any safeguarding incidents they may witness or become aware of. Staff received training about the specific needs of people who's behaviour may challenge the service; for example challenging behaviour, epilepsy and autism.
Staff told us about the weekly meeting to decide menus for the week ahead, leisure activities and allocation of tasks which promoted independent living skills: 'We meet every Sunday to prepare the weekly menu choices.' and 'We discuss activities people would like to do during the week.'