We inspected The Old Rectory on 3 November 2014. This was an unannounced inspection. At our previous inspection in December 2013, the service was meeting the legal requirements.
The Old Rectory provides accommodation for up to seven adults with a learning disability who need support with personal care. There were seven people living in The Old Rectory when we visited.
At the time of the inspection the home had a registered manager in place. 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 who lived at the home told us that they felt safe living there. The manager and staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm as much as possible. There were appropriate policies and procedures in place which helped staff to minimise risks to people’s safety.
The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). No one was subject to a DoLS authorisation at the time of our inspection. For people who were assessed as not having capacity, records showed that their families and other health professionals were involved in discussions about who should make decisions in their best interests.
People’s care and support needs had been assessed and risks to their health and welfare recorded. These were reviewed regularly by staff and, if required, input from other health or social care professionals was sought. People living at the home were involved in discussions about their care and support.
Current and relevant professional guidance was followed regarding the management of medicines.
Staff were appropriately trained and skilled and provided care in a safe environment. They all understood their roles and responsibilities. The staff had also completed training to ensure that the care provided to people was safe and effective to meet people’s individual needs. Staff had effective support, induction, supervision and training.
People were treated with respect and their dignity was upheld. The staff were kind, attentive and compassionate.
People’s food and drink needs were managed as part of a weekly discussion between people living in the home and their key workers. This included making decisions about what to eat, where to buy the food and who would help to prepare and cook it. Options and choices were always offered where one person did not, or could not, eat the prepared meal. People living in the home were conscious of the need to eat healthily whenever possible.
Staff felt supported by the manager and assistant manager.
The provider had a quality assurance system and regularly sought the views of people living in the home, family members, staff and other health and social care providers. People knew how to make complaints and the provider responded to complaints appropriately. Where a complaint triggered a change in the service the manager shared learning with people living in the home, the staff and with the senior management team.
We inspected The Old Rectory on 3 November 2014. This was an unannounced inspection. At our previous inspection in December 2013, the service was meeting the legal requirements.
The Old Rectory provides accommodation for up to seven adults with a learning disability who need support with personal care. There were seven people living in The Old Rectory when we visited.
At the time of the inspection the home had a registered manager in place. 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 who lived at the home told us that they felt safe living there. The manager and staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm as much as possible. There were appropriate policies and procedures in place which helped staff to minimise risks to people’s safety.
The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). No one was subject to a DoLS authorisation at the time of our inspection. For people who were assessed as not having capacity, records showed that their families and other health professionals were involved in discussions about who should make decisions in their best interests.
People’s care and support needs had been assessed and risks to their health and welfare recorded. These were reviewed regularly by staff and, if required, input from other health or social care professionals was sought. People living at the home were involved in discussions about their care and support.
Current and relevant professional guidance was followed regarding the management of medicines.
Staff were appropriately trained and skilled and provided care in a safe environment. They all understood their roles and responsibilities. The staff had also completed training to ensure that the care provided to people was safe and effective to meet people’s individual needs. Staff had effective support, induction, supervision and training.
People were treated with respect and their dignity was upheld. The staff were kind, attentive and compassionate.
People’s food and drink needs were managed as part of a weekly discussion between people living in the home and their key workers. This included making decisions about what to eat, where to buy the food and who would help to prepare and cook it. Options and choices were always offered where one person did not, or could not, eat the prepared meal. People living in the home were conscious of the need to eat healthily whenever possible.
Staff felt supported by the manager and assistant manager.
The provider had a quality assurance system and regularly sought the views of people living in the home, family members, staff and other health and social care providers. People knew how to make complaints and the provider responded to complaints appropriately. Where a complaint triggered a change in the service the manager shared learning with people living in the home, the staff and with the senior management team.