4 Old Barn Close

Updated 4 October 2018

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 comprehensive inspection took place on 4 and 5 September 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. Prior to and after the inspection, we reviewed previous inspection reports and other information we held about the home including notifications. Notifications are changes or events that occur at the service which the provider has a legal duty to inform us about.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the completed PIR and used this to inform our inspection.

During the inspection we spoke with four staff including the registered manager. Following the inspection, we spoke with four relatives on the telephone. We examined care records for four people, including documents related to the management of people’s medicines. We read recruitment documents relating to the employment of two staff, audits, records of safety checks and other documentation related to the running of the service.

We observed how care was provided to people, how they interacted with staff and their environment. We were not able to speak with all the people who were present in the service due to communication difficulties. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 4 October 2018

4 Old Barn Close is a residential care home for four people with learning disabilities. Accommodation is provided on the ground floor with shared facilities such as a kitchen, bathrooms and lounge. Each person had their own bedroom. At the time of the inspection four men were living in the service.

At our last inspection we rated the service 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. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good:

People's safety and well-being had been considered by the service and steps had been taken to minimise the risk of harm. Care plans and risk assessments had been completed to minimise the risks associated with the delivery of care. Records were up to date and trained staff administered medicines to people. Supplies and equipment used in the service were maintained and checked.

Prior to moving into the service, each person had their needs assessed. People are 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. People’s relatives spoke positively about the food available in the service.

Staff training was not always provided in line with the demand, meaning staff had to wait to refresh or attend training. We have made a recommendation about this. Staff were supported through supervision, training and appraisals to carry out their role. Staff meetings were provided to encourage clear communication and updates.

We were told and we observed how staff showed kindness and a caring approach towards people. People’s privacy and dignity were protected. Care plans detailed how people communicated with staff. This allowed staff to understand the simple gestures people made which indicated pleasure or dislike. Staff knew people well and understood their preferences. People’s care plans were personalised and focussed on their specific needs.

Information was obtained from people’s relatives verbally and through a questionnaire as to how the service could be improved. Staff told us the managers were accessible, open and honest. They felt supported by the management and spoke positively about their management skills.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.