Archived: The Old Police House

Updated 24 November 2015

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 inspection took place on 23 and 25 September 2015 and was unannounced. It was carried out by one inspector.

People had communication and language difficulties associated with their learning difficulty. We therefore used our observations of care and our discussions with people’s parents and staff to help form our judgements.

We spoke with three parents. We spoke with six care staff and the registered manager. We observed care and support in communal areas and looked at three people’s care records. We also looked at records that related to how the home was managed, such as quality assurance audits.

Before our inspection we reviewed all of the information we held about the home. We also reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR) and previous inspection reports. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make.

Updated 24 November 2015

The Old Police House provides care and support for up to eight older people who have a learning disability and a physical disability. People require 24 hour staff support in the home and support to go out. The home is situated in a quiet residential area in the small village of Nunney.

A registered manager was responsible for the home. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

This inspection took place on 23 and 25 September 2015 and was unannounced. It was carried out by one inspector.

People had communication difficulties associated with their learning difficulty. We therefore used our observations of care and our discussions with people’s parents and staff to help form our judgements.

The home was a safe place for people. Staff understood people’s needs and provided the care and support they needed. One parent said “I’ve no concerns about safety. The staff make sure people are always safe.”

The service supported people to make as many choices about their own lives as they could. People used community facilities and their independence was encouraged. People appeared happy with the care they received and interacted well with staff.

People received very good support from health and social care professionals. Staff were skilled at communicating with people, especially if people were unable to communicate verbally.

Staff had built close, trusting relationships with people over time. The care provided and the environment was adapted to meet people’s changing needs. One parent said “It’s a lovely home with brilliant staff.”

People, and those close to them, were involved in planning and reviewing their care and support. There was a very close relationship and good communication with people’s parents. Parents felt their views were listened to and acted on.

Communication and morale throughout the staff team was good. Staff were well supported and well trained. All staff spoken with said the support they received was very good. Staff spoke highly of the care they were able to provide to people. One parent said “We are so happy with care. The care is wonderful; we couldn’t ask for better.”

There was a management structure in the home which provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. The management team strived to provide the best level of care possible to people. The aims of the service were well defined and adopted by the staff team

There were effective quality assurance processes in place to monitor care and safety and plan ongoing improvements. There were systems in place to share information and seek people’s views about the running of the home.