Archived: William Morris House

Updated 23 May 2017

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 inspection took place on 28 and 30 March 2017. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector and was unannounced. The last full inspection of the service was in November 2015. At that time we rated the service overall as ‘Good’. However, we rated the service as ‘Requires Improvement’ under our key question heading of; Is the service effective and, identified a breach of Regulation 11 (1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Following our inspection the provider sent us an action plan detailing the action they would take to ensure the required improvements were made.

Prior to the inspection we looked at the information we had about the service. This information included the statutory notifications that the provider had sent to CQC. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We also reviewed the most recent OFSTED report following their inspection in July 2016.

We contacted four health and social care professionals involved with the service and asked them for some feedback. Their comments have been incorporated into this report.

Some people were able to talk with us about the service they received. We spoke with five people. We spent time with people in each house and communal areas within the college and its grounds. We spoke with eleven staff, including the manager, the strategic director, office based staff, three house co-ordinators and four support workers. We also spoke with relatives of three people using the service by telephone.

We looked at the care records of six people using the service, three staff personnel files, training records for all staff, staff duty rotas and other records relating to the management of the service. We looked at a range of policies and procedures including, safeguarding, whistleblowing, complaints, mental capacity and deprivation of liberty, recruitment, accidents and incidents and equality and diversity.

Updated 23 May 2017

William Morris House is a specialist residential college that forms part of the Camphill Community. The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 35 young people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder either during term time or a full-time 52 week placement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates and inspects the accommodation and personal care. The educational provision at the college is regulated and inspected by the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED).

At the time of this inspection eight people were using the service. Five people using the service lived in one house (Hiram) three people in another (Merton). Additional accommodation was being used for activities and staff training with some being refurbished to provide more independent flats.

At our last inspection in November 2015 we found, a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because, people’s capacity to make choices and decisions and consent to their care and treatment, had not been assessed and any restrictions upon people’s liberty had not been identified. At this inspection we saw the provider had taken the action they had identified in their action plan. As a result improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach of this regulation.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good overall.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good:

The service was designed and delivered around the individual needs of people, provided by caring staff who were well supported by managers and, was continually seeking to improve. We did not find any breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 during this inspection.

People were safe. The manager and staff understood their role and responsibilities to keep people

safe from harm. People were supported to take risks, promote their independence and follow their interests. Risks were assessed and plans put in place to keep people safe. There was enough staff to safely provide care and support to people. Checks were carried out on staff before they started work with people to assess their suitability. Medicines were well managed and people received their medicines as prescribed.

The service was effective in meeting people’s needs. Staff received regular supervision and the training needed to meet people’s needs. Arrangements were made for people to see a GP and other healthcare professionals when they needed to do so. The physical environment was personalised and met people’s needs. The service complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People received a service that was caring. They were cared for and supported by staff who knew them well. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People’s views were actively sought and they were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Information was provided in ways that were easy to understand. People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends.

The service was exceptionally responsive to people’s needs. People received person centred care and support. They were offered a range of activities both at the service and in the local community. People were encouraged to make their views known and the service responded by making changes. Effective communication was maintained with relatives. Staff worked hard to ensure people’s moves to and from the service were managed in a manner that minimised disruption and ensured their needs were met.

The service was well led. The manager worked closely with the strategic director and met regularly with the trustees. Trustees are responsible for making sure charitable organisations do what they have been set up for, they are unpaid and usually carry out these duties through regular meetings with the senior staff. The manager, senior staff and trustees provided good leadership and management, particularly with respect to the evolving vision and values of the service. The vision and culture of the service was clearly communicated to and understood by staff. A comprehensive and sophisticated quality assurance system was in place. This system was based upon regular, scheduled audits which fed into an overall quality improvement cycle. This meant the quality of service people received was monitored on a regular basis and where shortfalls were identified they were acted upon.