Sharon and Glen Arnott - 32 Beamont Way

Updated 3 March 2018

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 was a comprehensive inspection that took place on 24 January 2018. This inspection was announced, which meant the provider was given short notice that we would be visiting. This was because the service only supports four people and we wanted to make sure someone would be available to support our inspection.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector. Before our inspection visit we reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with three people and observed all four people who were using the service. We looked at the care records of two people and three staff recruitment files. We also looked at records relating to all aspects of the service including care, staffing, training and quality assurance.

The service has two registered managers and one of these registered managers is also the provider. Throughout this report we have referred to them separately as the registered manager and the provider. Both the provider and registered manager were available throughout our inspection and we spent time talking with them about this service. We also spoke with three members of staff.

After our inspection we spoke to three relatives on the telephone and received feedback from four health and social care professionals.

Updated 3 March 2018

32 Beamont Way is a home providing care and accommodation for up to four people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were four people living in the home. The service is one of two run by Sharon and Glen Arnott.

At the last inspection on 8 November 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection the service remains good in safe, effective, responsive and well led and has improved to outstanding in caring.

The service has two registered managers and one of these registered manager’s is also the provider. Throughout this report we have referred to them as the registered manager and the provider. Both the provider and registered manager were available throughout our 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.

At this inspection staff demonstrated that they continuously and consistently looked for ways to improve and provide the opportunity for meaningful experiences. Therefore we have rated caring as Outstanding.

The management and staff had built up sincere relationships with people and their relatives based on mutual respect and trust. There were clear friendships between people and staff as they chatted and engaged with people ensuring that they were involved in all aspects of their care.

Relatives highly praised the care and love shown to their family members and the impact that it had on people commenting “They do an excellent job; well it’s more than a job to the managers and staff there.”

The management and staff demonstrated a level of compassion that went above their caring role when people had to leave the home to go to hospital for planned or unplanned treatment. Staff would spend time over their normal working hours to sit and be with people in an unfamiliar setting to reassure them and provide that consistency and care.

The service provided continued to be safe. Staff had all received safeguarding training, and were aware of their responsibilities in reporting concerns, and the concerns of those they supported. Risks to people’s personal safety had been assessed. Plans were in place to minimise these and support people to be as independent as possible.

The service continued to be effective. People continued to be supported by staff with the necessary skills and knowledge to fulfil their role. Each staff member had their own training plan in place, which showed when refresher training was next due. They were encouraged to undertake higher level training, such as their Health and Social care Diploma. The registered manager spoke passionately about the training available for staff and said they were happy to source whatever training staff showed an interest in.

The service worked well with external organisations to ensure that people received effective care, support and treatment when needed. Health and social care professionals spoke highly of the service and the commitment staff showed to people.

People were actively consulted and involved in making decisions about their care. The registered manager and staff were able to explain how they applied the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) in practice when supporting people to make decisions. However we saw that two capacity assessments were not in the care plan for one person who had monitoring equipment in place to keep them safe. The provider explained that the person’s social worker had completed this document and they had not yet been sent the copy. Following our inspection the provider informed us that the MCA’s for this person were now in place.

Care, treatment and support plans were personalised. The examples seen were thorough and reflected people’s needs and choices. Information was clearly recorded on what each person could undertake independently and the areas they needed extra support from staff.

The provider and registered manager were both effective role models for the service promoting a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering. The service demonstrated a well-developed understanding of equality, diversity and human rights and put these into practice. The management were very visible in the service and had formed close relationships with people who told us “I can talk to the managers and they are lovely”,

The quality of care and service continued to be maintained. This was monitored through regular weekly and monthly audits. The provider and registered manager continued to understand their responsibilities around reporting to the Care Quality Commission any notifiable events or incidents.