We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Old Rectory 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 The Old Rectory, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ The relatives we spoke with told us the home managed infection prevention and control, and specifically COVID-19, well. They told us the service communicated regularly with them. One relative said, “I am very happy with the service and everything they do for my [relative].”
¿ The home was visibly clean, and we observed staff cleaning throughout our inspection site visit. Cleaning records were in place to demonstrate what had been cleaned when and by whom.
¿ The people who used the service had COVID-19 risk assessments and care plans in place which were individual to them and took account of aspects such as health and social care needs and accessing the community.
¿ Visiting was in line with government guidance and the relatives we spoke with confirmed this.
¿ We observed staff using personal protective equipment (PPE) as per government guidance and there were plentiful supplies.
The Old Rectory is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for 7 adults with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorder. There were 7 people living in the service at the time of our inspection. The service is larger than recommended by best practice guidance. However, we have rated this service good because the service was arranged in a way that ensured people received person-centred care and were supported to maximise their independence, choice, control and involvement in the community.
The Old Rectory is an older building and each person has their own bedroom. People shared bathroom facilities. There is a lounge and a large kitchen and dining area. There is also a large garden people can access.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People received exceptionally person-centred care. People’s needs, wishes and aspirations were clearly identified, and staff supported people to be as independent as possible. Staff supported people to attend events in the local community, access employment and follow their interests. Detailed assessments of people’s communication needs took place, and staff engaged with people using their preferred way of communicating. Staff sought specialist advice from other professionals to help with the planning of end of life care for people. There was a complaints procedure in place and complaints were responded to according to the procedure.
People were cared for in a way which was respectful, and which upheld their dignity. People’s right to privacy was respected and staff knew when to give people space. Staff were quick to offer people reassurance when people became distressed or expressed concerns.
Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and people felt safe living in the home. People’s individual risks had been assessed and planned for, as well as environmental risks. People’s medicines were managed safely and administered according to the prescriber’s instructions. Action was being taken to improve the overall cleanliness of the service.
Staff completed training relevant to their role and received regular supervisions. People were supported to have a healthy diet, and access healthcare professionals when needed. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The service had a clear ethos, and prioritised people’s quality of life. People, their relatives, staff and the public were involved in sharing their views about the service. Effective governance systems were in place to drive improvement. Staff worked closely with other organisations to further improve the care people received.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
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 good (published 26 May 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The Old Rectory on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
When we inspected on 4 May 2017, there were 6 people using the service. This was an unannounced inspection.
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.
The service provided care and support to people which took account of their individual needs, preferences and wishes. We saw friendly and caring interactions between staff and people. People received care that respected their privacy and dignity and promoted their independence.
Effective systems were in place which protected people from the risk of abuse. Staff were trained to identify potential signs and knew how to report any concerns.
Safe recruitment procedures were in place, and staff had undergone recruitment checks before they started work to ensure they were suitable for the role.
Risks to people were identified, monitored and reviewed regularly. Assessments guided staff on how to ensure the safety of the people who used the service.
The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff understood the need to obtain consent when providing care. 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 supported this practice.
People were supported to maintain good health and had access to a range of health and social care professionals when required.
People received their medicines safely and in a timely manner.
There were processes to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided. The management team presented as open and transparent throughout the inspection, seeking feedback to continually improve the care provision.
We inspected The Old Rectory on 3 November 2014. This was an unannounced inspection. At our previous inspection in December 2013, the service was meeting the legal requirements.
The Old Rectory provides accommodation for up to seven adults with a learning disability who need support with personal care. There were seven people living in The Old Rectory when we visited.
At the time of the inspection the home had 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.
People who lived at the home told us that they felt safe living there. The manager and staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm as much as possible. There were appropriate policies and procedures in place which helped staff to minimise risks to people’s safety.
The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). No one was subject to a DoLS authorisation at the time of our inspection. For people who were assessed as not having capacity, records showed that their families and other health professionals were involved in discussions about who should make decisions in their best interests.
People’s care and support needs had been assessed and risks to their health and welfare recorded. These were reviewed regularly by staff and, if required, input from other health or social care professionals was sought. People living at the home were involved in discussions about their care and support.
Current and relevant professional guidance was followed regarding the management of medicines.
Staff were appropriately trained and skilled and provided care in a safe environment. They all understood their roles and responsibilities. The staff had also completed training to ensure that the care provided to people was safe and effective to meet people’s individual needs. Staff had effective support, induction, supervision and training.
People were treated with respect and their dignity was upheld. The staff were kind, attentive and compassionate.
People’s food and drink needs were managed as part of a weekly discussion between people living in the home and their key workers. This included making decisions about what to eat, where to buy the food and who would help to prepare and cook it. Options and choices were always offered where one person did not, or could not, eat the prepared meal. People living in the home were conscious of the need to eat healthily whenever possible.
Staff felt supported by the manager and assistant manager.
The provider had a quality assurance system and regularly sought the views of people living in the home, family members, staff and other health and social care providers. People knew how to make complaints and the provider responded to complaints appropriately. Where a complaint triggered a change in the service the manager shared learning with people living in the home, the staff and with the senior management team.
We inspected The Old Rectory on 3 November 2014. This was an unannounced inspection. At our previous inspection in December 2013, the service was meeting the legal requirements.
The Old Rectory provides accommodation for up to seven adults with a learning disability who need support with personal care. There were seven people living in The Old Rectory when we visited.
At the time of the inspection the home had 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.
People who lived at the home told us that they felt safe living there. The manager and staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm as much as possible. There were appropriate policies and procedures in place which helped staff to minimise risks to people’s safety.
The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). No one was subject to a DoLS authorisation at the time of our inspection. For people who were assessed as not having capacity, records showed that their families and other health professionals were involved in discussions about who should make decisions in their best interests.
People’s care and support needs had been assessed and risks to their health and welfare recorded. These were reviewed regularly by staff and, if required, input from other health or social care professionals was sought. People living at the home were involved in discussions about their care and support.
Current and relevant professional guidance was followed regarding the management of medicines.
Staff were appropriately trained and skilled and provided care in a safe environment. They all understood their roles and responsibilities. The staff had also completed training to ensure that the care provided to people was safe and effective to meet people’s individual needs. Staff had effective support, induction, supervision and training.
People were treated with respect and their dignity was upheld. The staff were kind, attentive and compassionate.
People’s food and drink needs were managed as part of a weekly discussion between people living in the home and their key workers. This included making decisions about what to eat, where to buy the food and who would help to prepare and cook it. Options and choices were always offered where one person did not, or could not, eat the prepared meal. People living in the home were conscious of the need to eat healthily whenever possible.
Staff felt supported by the manager and assistant manager.
The provider had a quality assurance system and regularly sought the views of people living in the home, family members, staff and other health and social care providers. People knew how to make complaints and the provider responded to complaints appropriately. Where a complaint triggered a change in the service the manager shared learning with people living in the home, the staff and with the senior management team.
How we carried out this inspection
We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out on a visit on the 30 December 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.
What people told us and what we found
We spoke with three people in the kitchen during breakfast and two individually. We were told by people that they were comfortable, happy and felt well supported. One person told us "I've have lived here a long time. I like it. I have friends here." Another person told us "I get to see my favourite football team play. I enjoy that." Everyone we spoke to was positive about living there. During our visit two people were taken to the local shop.
We looked at care and support plans, policies and procedures and spoke to several members of staff and the manager during our visit.
Everyone we spoke to indicated they were satisfied with the care and support they received.
You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.
We looked at care records, policies and procedures and spoke to several members of staff and the manager during our visit to the service.
We saw people either going out with staff to the supermarket or taking part in their own activities. Everyone we spoke with told us verbally or signed to us that they were satisfied with the care and support they received such as one person's recent visit to the airport to watch the planes and helicopters. People were able to have a say in their care and knew who their key worker was and when they were meeting with them to talk about changes and plan new outings.
They told us they took turns to do things like cooking and helped to keep their rooms clean and tidy.
One person told us about the holidays they had been on and another told us about a party.
Our discussions showed us that people were aware of things that were going to happen, opportunities for activities and when medical appointments were due.