Bobbins

Updated 4 April 2024

Date of assessment: 25 June to 30 September 2024. This was a responsive assessment due to concerns people raised. Bobbins supports up to 6 people with a learning disability and autistic people. We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance when making our judgements. This is guidance that outlines what is expected when supporting people with learning disability and autistic people. We found 5 breaches of regulation in risk management, governance, safeguarding, safe recruitment and person-centred care. We took urgent enforcement action to keep people safe. Staff were not trained to use, and demonstrated a poor culture around, least restrictive practices. They did not recognise abuse or patterns of incidents. They did not consistently take action on safeguarding or inform the local authority safeguarding team of potential abuse. Staff were not well trained for their role and recruitment was not always completed in line with regulations. They did not have adequate guidelines to manage and mitigate risks. Care was not person centred. Decisions about people’s care did not always follow legislation. They did not always use alternative communication methods and restricted people’s movements around the service. Systems did not ensure people received high quality, safe care. The management and provider failed to identify concerns we found. Staff did not receive training on policies and procedures. However, the service started to make improvements following our concerns. One local authority urgently moved a person out of the service to keep them safe. We placed this service in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we user our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.

Updated 4 April 2024

People in this service had limited verbal communication, therefore we relied on our observations of their care to understand their views. Although people had good relationships with some of the staff in the home the model of care and setting did not maximise people’s choice, control and independence. We observed people becoming distressed when staff crowded round them and did not give them space. We saw people display signs of anxiety and distress when staff did not always use kind and respectful language. This did not demonstrate understanding to their needs and wishes. For example, staff members telling people to “stop that” when they were enjoying the activity. However, some staff clearly had a positive relationship with people. Some people and staff were laughing and smiling whilst they interacted. This helped to reduce people’s anxiety and distress. By the second site visit the home seemed to be calmer and more positive.