The Old Pepper Pot House

The Old Pepper Pot House is a ‘care home.’ People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to six people who may have a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were five people living at the home who had a range of care needs including a learning disability.

The property is located on the sea front at Littlehampton. The building is a converted older style property with accommodation and facilities for people on four levels. A lower ground floor level has a self-contained apartment with a kitchen, living room, bedroom and bathroom for one person. Each person has their own bedroom. There are communal living areas such as a living room, dining room, kitchen and a garden.

At our last inspection 21 June 2016 we rated the service as Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

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.

Care staff had a good awareness of the principles of safeguarding people and were committed to ensuring people were safe at all times. Risks to people were comprehensively assessed and care plans included guidance on how to mitigate any risks. Sufficient numbers of well-trained staff were provided so people’s needs were met. Checks were made to ensure newly appointed staff were suitable to work in a care setting. Medicines were safely managed. The premises were safe and well maintained. Incidents were reviewed to see if any changes in service provision was needed. The home was found to be clean and hygienic.

Staff were well trained and had access to a range of training courses. Staff demonstrated they had values of treating people equally irrespective of any disability.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and monitored. People were involved in devising the menu plan and in preparing meals with staff support. People’s health care needs were monitored and arrangements made for people to receive health care checks and treatment. The provider worked well with other agencies so that physical and mental health care needs were met.

The registered manager and staff had a good awareness of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Where people did not have capacity to consent to care and treatment this was assessed and the provider worked with community learning disability services regarding any restrictions on people’s liberty.

People were supported by compassionate and caring staff. Staff were observed to be skilled in communicating and supporting people who had a complex learning disability. People were consulted and involved in decisions about their care and support. Independence was promoted and people’s privacy respected.

People received care which was responsive to their needs and preferences. Each person’s needs were thoroughly assessed. Person centred care plans and staffing arrangements ensured each person received care and support which was specific to meeting their needs. This included support with emotional and behaviour needs. People were supported to attend a range of activities and outings to nearby facilities.

Arrangements were in place to aid people who communication needs. These included care plans and information being in pictorial format. The provider had a complaints procedure.

The service was well led. The registered manager was motivated to deliver good quality care and to support staff. There was system of comprehensive audits and checks regarding the quality and safety of the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 told us they felt safe with staff. There were policies and procedures regarding the safeguarding of adults. Risks to people had been identified and assessed appropriately. There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people and safe recruitment practices were followed. Medicines were managed safely.

Staff had received training to meet people’s needs and staff were supported to undertake additional qualifications. Staff told us the training provided was good. Regular staff meetings were held and an effective handover took place between each shift.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We found the registered manager understood when an application should be made and how to submit one. We found the provider to be meeting the requirements of DoLS. The registered manager and staff were guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) regarding best interests decisions should anyone be deemed to lack capacity.

People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink and to maintain a healthy diet. They had access to healthcare professionals. People’s rooms were decorated in line with their personal preferences.

People and staff got on well and there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the home. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and personal care was delivered in private.

Care plans were person-centred and informed staff of the support people needed. People’s preferences and likes and dislikes were documented so that staff knew how people wished to be supported. People went out into the community with staff support. There were a variety of activities and outings on offer which people could choose to do. Complaints were dealt with in line with the provider’s policy.

People could express their views and discuss any issues or concerns with their keyworker, who co-ordinated all aspects of their care. There were policies and procedures in place regarding quality assurance and regular audits measured the quality of the care provided.

One person said, "I am very happy with the help and support from staff. I have no concerns".

Another person said, "I have a lot of activities to go to. There is something every day and I can do new things that I am interested in".

We spoke with the staff member during this inspection. They demonstrated a good knowledge of the needs of the people they supported. They told us that they had a good level of training, including an induction and they were encouraged to develop their skills. They felt the environment met peoples' needs and knew how to support people to raise concerns.