• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Ordinary Living

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Phillips Farm, Marine Drive, Widemouth Bay, Bude, EX23 0LZ (01288) 356608

Provided and run by:
Ordinary Living Limited

All Inspections

12 January 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

About the service

Ordinary Living is a supported living service providing personal care to people living in their own homes. The service provides support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection 11 people were receiving support with personal care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Right Support

¿ Staff had not always worked with people to identify goals and aspirations. Where goals had been identified there were no clear plans to help people achieve them.

¿ There was a lack of oversight of the restrictive practices in place. This meant they might not be reviewed regularly to ensure they remained proportionate and the least restrictive option.

¿ When people experienced periods of distress staff learned from those events and considered how they might be avoided in the future.

¿ Staff supported and encouraged people to access specialist health and social care support in the community.

¿ Staff supported people with their medicines, so they received them as prescribed. There were protocols in place for staff to follow before administering medicines to be used ‘as required’.

¿ People were supported to have choice and control and records showed staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies in the service supported this practice. However, there was a lack of oversight of the restrictions in place. This meant opportunities to reduce restrictions might be missed.

Right Care:

¿ People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people’s privacy and dignity. They understood and responded to their individual needs.

¿ Staff understood how to protect people from poor care and abuse. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.

¿ The service had enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.

¿ Not all staff had received training in supporting autistic people or people with a learning disability. Some staff had not had any training in alternative communication methods.

Right Culture:

¿ Systems for monitoring the culture of the service were limited. Audits that did address people’s experience of receiving support from Ordinary Living were not well established.

¿ There was a strong management team in place and staff told us they were well supported and able to access support and guidance when needed.

¿ Relatives were positive about the management of the service. During the inspection senior managers were open and transparent during the inspection process and demonstrated motivation to make improvements.

¿ Staff turnover was low, which supported people to receive consistent care from staff who knew them well.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 26 May 2022).

The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve.

At this inspection we found although the provider had met some of the previous breaches they remained in breach of regulations. This was in relation to the provision of care which reflected people's needs and preferences, and the oversight of the service.

Why we inspected

This inspection was carried out to follow up on action we told the provider to take at the last inspection.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will meet with the provider following this report being published to discuss how they will make changes to ensure they improve their rating to at least good.

5 April 2022

During a routine inspection

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

About the service

Ordinary Living is a supported living service providing personal care to 30 people at the time of the inspection. The service provides support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The service was not able to demonstrate how they were meeting some of the underpinning principles of Right support, right care, right culture.

The service registered office was located on farmland which was accessed by a private lane. The office was adjacent to a cluster of five buildings which were home to some of the people using the service. The private lane led to a main road without pavements and it would be difficult for people to leave the service independently and walk to use local amenities. There were no other private houses in the vicinity and the feel was comparable to a campus style setting. A building was being developed for use as an activities hut. This increased the risk of the service becoming insular and further isolated from the local community.

Right Support

¿ Staff had not always worked with people to identify goals and aspirations. Where goals had been identified there were no clear plans to help people achieve them.

¿ There was a lack of oversight of the restrictive practices in place. This meant they might not be reviewed regularly to ensure they remained proportionate and the least restrictive option.

¿ The service did not consistently follow the legislation as laid out in the Mental Capacity Act. When decisions were made on behalf of people who lacked the capacity to do so themselves best interest processes were not always followed.

¿ People’s accommodation met their needs. Where necessary reasonable adjustments were made so people were able to maintain their independence.

¿ People were able to pursue their individual interests and staff worked flexibly to support this.

Right Care

¿ Risk assessments were not always in place as needed. Guidance for staff on how to keep people safe lacked detail.

¿ Care records were brief and did not reflect people’s preferences. There was little detail in relation to routines, food preferences and what would make a good day for people.

¿ The service had enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.

¿ People received kind and compassionate care from staff who knew them well.

Right culture

¿ Language in records was not consistently person-centred or dignified.

¿ Audits completed at the service by the management team had not identified areas for improvement.

¿ There were no communication plans in place to help staff and others gain an understanding of people’s preferred communication styles.

¿ People, families and staff told us they were confident the service was well managed.

¿ Staff turnover was low which meant people were more likely to receive consistent care from staff who knew them well.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating

This service was registered with us on 18 December 2020 and this is the first inspection.

Why we inspected

We undertook this inspection to assess that the service is applying the principles of Right support right care right culture.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Enforcement

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to discharge our regulatory enforcement functions required to keep people safe and to hold providers to account where it is necessary for us to do so.

We have identified breaches in relation to the provision of person-centred care, the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act, the assessment and management of risk, oversight of the service and staff training. Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.