School Lane

Updated 7 December 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 7 November 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information available to us about this home. The registered manager had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that we ask providers to complete at least once annually to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at the previous inspection report and notifications which had been submitted to us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We took this into account when we inspected the home and made the judgements in this report. We asked commissioners for feedback but did not receive any.

During the inspection we met all three people who lived at School lane. We observed the interactions between staff and people. We inspected the environment, including the kitchen, bathroom and people’s bedrooms. We spoke with three people, two care staff, two deputy managers, the registered manager and director (the nominated Individual). We also spoke with a visiting health professional. Following this inspection, we spoke with three relatives and one care staff.

We reviewed three people’s care records. We looked at medicines records. We reviewed four staff recruitment files, staff induction and training records and a variety of records relating to the management of the home including staff rotas, surveys and quality audits.

Updated 7 December 2018

School Lane is a residential care home for up to three people with a learning disability, autism and a mental health condition or complex needs. The property is a detached bungalow on a residential street with a staff office in the garden. There were three people living in the home when we visited.

At our last inspection on 11 and 15 April 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection on 7 November 2018 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.

The service had 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 could live as ordinary a life as any citizen. These values were seen in practice at the home. For example, the building was like any other on the road with no signs to show it was a care home. Staff did not wear uniforms and people lived their lives in the ways they wanted.

People were kept safe from abuse and avoidable harm and could speak to staff if they had any concerns. All risks to people were assessed individually and there was detailed guidance available for staff. There were enough suitably trained and safely recruited staff to meet people’s needs. Medicines, including ‘as required’ medicines, were received, stored, administered and disposed of correctly. The home was maintained and clean. Staff understood how to prevent and control infection and all the necessary health and safety checks were completed to ensure a safe environment. Accidents and incidents were recorded, analysed and reviewed to identify any trends and to prevent future reoccurrence.

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’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. People were supported with their goals and achieved good outcomes. There was a significant reduction in people’s behaviour that challenges and therefore the use of any physical intervention or use of medication for this. People’s care records had clear guidance for staff on how to be supported with their needs in the way they wanted and staff took the time to get to know people by chatting with them. People were offered choice around their food and were involved with planning, shopping and cooking their meals. People had access to the healthcare they needed.

People were supported in a relaxed way by caring staff who respected them and promoted their independence. People were involved with all aspects of their day to day support and the running of the home. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity and supported them to keep in contact with their families.

People received personalised care which was responsive to their needs. Support plans focused on outcomes for people and the support they needed to meet these outcomes and to be in control of their own lives. In line with ‘registering the right support’ people were part of their communities, they used local facilities and accessed community health and leisure facilities. People could raise any complaints they had. The complaints procedure was accessible and the provider actively sought feedback from people and their relatives.

The management team consisted of two deputy managers, a registered manager and the directors. People and relatives said the home was well managed. Staff understood the vision and values of the and felt supported by the management team. The managers promoted a positive, person centred and professional learning culture, had good oversight of the quality and safety of the, and clearly understood and managed any risks. Audits were completed which identified any improvements needed. There was good record keeping and monitoring to ensure people received the support they needed. People were engaged in the home and there was good communication within the staff team.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.