We carried out a review of the data available to us about Wheal Gerry 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 Wheal Gerry, you can give feedback on this service.
Wheal Gerry has three houses in close proximity of each other. Each house accommodates one person with staff support at all times. At the time of the inspection two people were living in two of the houses. A third person was in the process of moving to Wheal Gerry and was involved in the furnishing of their new home. Wheal Gerry is part of Green Light PBS Limited, an organisation providing support and care for people with autism living in Cornwall.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
A new manager was appointed in September 2017 and had submitted their application to us to be the registered manager for the service. 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.
We met with one person who used the service as one person was not able to meet with us. There was a calm, relaxed and friendly atmosphere in the service. We observed that staff interacted with the person in a caring and compassionate manner. The person said they were happy with the care they received. Comments from their relatives included, “This is the most settled [Person’s name] has been. He is very happy there.” Another relative said “I have faith in the staff. I know [person’s name] is cared for by staff that really care.”
Care and support was provided by a consistent staff team, who knew people well and understood their needs. Care documentation informed staff of the person’s background and how they would like to receive support. It identified the person’s communication needs and this was shared with other agencies when necessary. For example sequence strips and easy read information were used to support effective communication.
Care records were up to date, regularly reviewed and accurately reflected people’s care and support needs. People, who received care, or their advocates, were involved in decisions about their support and consented to the care provided. Risk assessment procedures were designed to enable people to take risks while providing appropriate protection. Relatives’ commented that “Communication is so much better than anywhere else [person’s name] has been before.”
Transition work that staff undertook with people who were coming to live at Wheal Gerry was individualised. The manager had met with the person, family members and other health and social care professionals to discuss how the person would best be supported with the transition from their current placement to Wheal Gerry The person was also encouraged to take part in decorating their accommodation, choosing colours, furnishings and to bring personal items so that it could be decorated in line with their preferences and wishes.
Staff completed a thorough recruitment process to ensure they had the appropriate skills and knowledge. There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff on duty. Staffing levels were adjusted to meet people’s changing needs and wishes. With the planned admission of another person to the service the manager told us staffing levels would be increased to ensure they would be able to meet this person’s needs.
Staff were supported through a system of induction, training, supervision and staff meetings. This meant they developed the necessary skills to carry out their roles. Staff knew how to recognise and report the signs of abuse. There were opportunities for staff to raise any concerns or ideas about how the service could be developed.
People were supported to maintain good health, have access to healthcare services and receive on-going healthcare support. Staff supported people to arrange and attend appointments to see their GP and other necessary healthcare appointments.
People were supported to eat and drink enough and maintain a balanced diet and were involved in meal planning. Guidance from dieticians regarding specific health conditions were gained and acted upon to ensure the person received the appropriate diet for them.
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 support this practice. A person had requested restrictions were put in place around accessing food. This was discussed with all relevant parties and an agreement in how this would be managed was agreed by all.
Staff ensured people kept in touch with family and friends. Relatives told us they were always made welcome and were able to visit at any time. People were supported to access the local community and take part in a range of activities of their choice. Staff supported people individually and in groups to attend activities of their choosing.
The environment was clean, well maintained. The person’s own house was personalised to reflect people’s individual tastes.
People and their families were given information about how to complain. The manager was visible in the service, regularly working alongside staff to provide care and support for people. There was a positive culture within the staff team and staff said they were supported by the manager.
There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed. People and their families were involved in the running of the service and were regularly asked for their views through on-going conversations with staff and surveys.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
Wheal Gerry provides single person accommodation in three houses for people who have autistic spectrum disorders. At the time of the inspection two people were living at the service.
The service has 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.
As the service was new they were supporting two people in two houses at the time of the inspection. One person did not wish to meet with us. We met with one person who appeared to be settled in their home. We also met with a relative who shared their positive experience of the support they and their family member received from the service.
People were happy and relaxed on the day of the inspection. We saw people moving around their home as they wished, interacting with staff and smiling and laughing. Staff were attentive and available. Staff encouraged people to engage in meaningful activity and spoke with them in a friendly and respectful manner. Staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and spoke of them with affection.
Staff had high expectations for people and were positive in their attitude to support. Staff were respectful of the fact they were working in people’s homes. The service offered flexible support to people and were able to adapt in order to meet people’s needs and support them as they wanted. For example staff rotas were flexible to allow people to take part in activities which overlapped the default shift patterns. For example if people wanted to go out for the evening this was catered for.
The registered manager explained the in-depth transition work that took place with the person, their relatives and health and social care professionals. This work took time, and ensured that the transition for the person from their previous home to Wheal Gerry was undertaken sensitively. We saw detailed records of meetings in how each person’s care needs were assessed to ensure the move was individualised for that person. This was completed at the persons pace.
The service was also new to the community. The registered manager met with people from the local community to explain what their organisation was about; The registered manager is a visible face in the community and has met with neighbours so that they know who to contact if they had any queries or concerns.
Care plans were informative and contained clear guidance for staff. They included information about people’s routines, personal histories, preferences and any situations which might cause anxiety or stress. Details of how the person wished to be supported with their care needs were personalised and provided clear information to enable staff to provide appropriate and effective support. The person’s care plan was presented in written and pictorial formats to enable them to read their plan and be involved in any changes or updates.
Risk assessments were in place for day to day events such as using a vehicle and one off activities. Where activities were done regularly risk assessments were included in people’s care documentation. People had access to a range of activities. These were arranged according to people’s individual interests and preferences. Staff identified with people’s future goals and aspirations and worked with the person to achieve them.
Incidents and accidents were recorded. These records were reviewed regularly by all significant parties in order that trends were recognised so that identified risks could be addressed with the aim of minimising them in the future.
Where people did not have the capacity to make certain decisions, the service acted in accordance with legal requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had a good understanding of the principles of the legislation and training was updated regularly.
Staff were well supported through a system of induction and training. Staff told us the training was thorough and gave them confidence to carry out their role effectively. Staff said the training was relevant to the needs of the people they supported. New employees undertook a rigorous induction programme and told us this was beneficial and prepared them well for their roles. The staff team were supported by the registered manager and received regular supervision and staff meetings. These were an opportunity to share any concerns or ideas they had with the staff team and management.
The staff team were supportive of each other and worked together to support people. Staffing levels met the present care needs of the people that lived at the service.
People knew how to raise concerns and make complaints. There were plenty of opportunities for people, relatives and staff to voice how they felt about the service and any concerns they had.
As the service was newly registered they were actively seeking people’s, their relatives and views from the community. Surveys were circulated to all stakeholders and visitors were asked for their feedback. The registered manager was committed to engaging with families face to face where possible. Families were kept informed of any changes in people’s needs or appointments.
The service was well led and all of the staff were highly motivated and keen to ensure the care needs of the person they were supporting were met. Staff told us, “Communication is really good,” “We are really supported by management” and “I love my job.”
The management team had a clear set of values which was also apparent in our discussions with staff. Staff told us they felt involved in the development of the service and that management listened to any ideas and suggestions they had and took them on board.
There were clear lines of accountability and responsibility at Wheal Gerry and at Greenlight. The organisational values were embedded in working practices and staff worked to provide a service which was designed around the needs of the individual