We carried out a review of the data available to us about Huthnance Park 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 Huthnance Park, you can give feedback on this service.
Huthnance Park provides care and accommodation for up to five people who have autistic spectrum disorders. At the time of the inspection four people were living at the service. The service is part of the Green Light group who run several similar services throughout Cornwall, for people living on the autistic spectrum.
The people we met had complex learning disabilities and were not all able to tell us about their experiences of life at the home. We therefore used our observations of care and our discussions with staff, and feedback from a relative, to help form our judgements.
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
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence. 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 received personalised care which met their needs. People's care plans contained personalised information which detailed how they wanted their care to be delivered.
People were very relaxed and happy in the company of staff and the registered manager.
Staff knew people well and expressed care and affection for them and worked hard to enable people to share their views and live active lives as independently as possible.
People were supported to pursue their interests, hobbies and gain new skills. Staff were flexible and responded to people’s needs and wishes, adjusting activities accordingly, as well as exploring and trying new ideas with people.
Staff were recruited safely and there were sufficient numbers to ensure people’s care and social needs were met. Staff received induction, training and supervision to assist them to carry out their work.
People were safe and protected from avoidable harm or abuse. Staff were trained in safeguarding and were supported by effective policies.
Risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing were assessed and management plans were put in place to ensure these were reduced as much as possible.
People were supported to make choices and staff supported people in the least restrictive way as possible. Staff were aware of the legislation to protect people’s rights in making decisions.
Staff described how they supported people by treating them with respect and dignity. People participated in chosen activities and staff encouraged people to participate in things of interest to the them.
People were supported to access healthcare services, staff recognised changes in people's health, and sought professional advice appropriately. People were safely supported to take their medicines as prescribed.
There was strong leadership at the service and staff spoke highly of the registered manager. There was a positive culture at the service where staff felt listened to and supported.
The registered manager had quality assurance systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Huthnance Park provides accommodation for up to four people with complex needs. The service uses a detached house divided into three separate flats in the house and a detached two bedroomed bungalow in the grounds. There were three people living at the service at the time of our inspection.
The service had 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.
There was a positive atmosphere at Huthnance Park and it was noticeable that staff and management put people at the centre of the service. People and their relatives were encouraged to be involved in the planning of care. Senior management, staff and relatives regularly discussed how to best support people living at Huthnance Park.
There were regular feedback opportunities for people to give their thoughts on how the service was working. Overall relatives were positive about the care and support provided to people, but we did find there was some frustration about the length of time it could take to implement new ideas. We were provided with some examples of this, which in order not to identify individuals we will not be providing specific details about.
Due to people’s communication needs we were unable to gain some people’s verbal views on the service and therefore observed staff interactions with two people who lived there. We observed that people were relaxed, engaged in their own choice of activities and appeared to be happy and well supported by the service. One person told us they were happy and felt safe living at Huthnance Park. Comments included; “This is my home. I am happy here and I’m doing very well”. A relative told us, “I’m very happy with the support and opportunities my [relative] has had since moving into Huthnance. They have some staff who are absolutely fantastic.”
We walked around the service and saw it was comfortable and personalised to reflect people’s individual tastes. Decoration and updating of the service was ongoing and we saw people’s individual flats had been decorated to meet their choices. People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff demonstrated they had an excellent knowledge of the people they supported and were able to appropriately support people without limiting their independence. Staff consistently spent time speaking with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking to and interacting with staff. Staff were trained and competent to provide the support individuals required.
Staff were well supported through a system of induction and training. Staff told us the training was thorough and gave them confidence to carry out their role effectively. Staff comments included, “The induction was quite full on because it was classroom based and for up to eight hours per day. But it was very good and did prepare me to do the job.” The staff team were supportive of each other and worked together to support people. Staffing levels met the present care needs of the people that lived at the service.
Robust recruitment procedures were used to make sure new staff were safe and competent to work with people at the service. Staff were trained to provide the support individuals needed.
The service were meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). 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 had regular routine access to visiting health and social care professionals where necessary. People attended an annual health check with a GP and had access to specialist medical services to ensure their health needs were met. Professionals told us there was appropriate communication between the service and medical services. We saw clear guidance for staff about how they were to meet people’s needs so that they worked in collaboration. Staff responded to people’s changing health needs and sought the appropriate guidance or care from healthcare professionals when required.
Medicines were managed safely to ensure people received them in accordance with their health needs and the prescriber’s instructions.
Staff had a positive approach to keeping people safe and there was commitment to managing the changing risks in the service. Staff had developed their skills and understanding to appropriately support people when they became stressed or anxious. There were enough staff to keep people safe and properly supported to do the things they enjoyed, such as helping out at a local farm and coastal walks.
People’s safety risks were identified, managed and reviewed and staff understood how to keep people safe. Staff identified and reported any concerns relating to a person’s safety and welfare. The registered manager had a system to respond to all concerns or complaints appropriately.
Reltives told us they were always made welcome. People were able to see their visitors in their own flats. Relatives of people who used the service commented, “I am always made welcome when visiting”.
Comprehensive quality assurance processes were regularly undertaken to ensure management were aware of how the service was operating, and were able to implement changes to keep the quality of the service high. This ensured an open service culture that is open to challenge and learning from issues affecting the quality of the service as they arise.
This was an unannounced inspection, carried out on 4 August 2015. There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. Huthnance Park provides accommodation for up to five people with complex needs. The service uses a detached house divided into four separate flats in the house and around the grounds. There were four people living at the service at the time of our inspection.
Due to people’s communication needs we were unable to gain some people’s verbal views on the service and therefore observed staff interactions with three people who lived there. We observed that people were relaxed, engaged in their own choice of activities and appeared to be happy and well supported by the service. One person told us they were happy and felt safe living at Huthnance Park. Comments included; “I am happy here. Huthnance is a nice place to live.” We walked around the service and saw it was comfortable and personalised to reflect people’s individual tastes. People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff demonstrated they had an excellent knowledge of the people they supported and were able to appropriately support people without limiting their independence. Staff consistently spent time speaking with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking to and interacting with staff. Staff were trained and competent to provide the support individuals required.
Staff were well supported through a system of induction and training. Staff told us the training was thorough and gave them confidence to carry out their role effectively.
The staff team were supportive of each other and worked together to support people. Staffing levels met the present care needs of the people that lived at the service.
Where people did not have the capacity to make certain decisions, the service acted in accordance with legal requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks chosen by themselves, which they told us they enjoyed. People had been included in planning their own menus and their feedback about the meals in the service had been listened to and acted on. Some people were actively involved in meal preparation. Staff told us people could go out and do their own grocery shopping and sometimes people chose to shop on-line and have their order delivered to the service.
Visitors told us they were always made welcome and were able to visit at any time. People were able to see their visitors in their own flats. Relatives of people who used the service commented, “The staff have always responded quickly and efficiently to our calls and have always made us feel welcome at Huthnance”.
People knew how to complain and one person told us they would be happy to speak with the service manager if they had any concerns. We were given an example of an issue that had been raised and it was agreed there had been an appropriate management response to this which was acceptable to the person. One relative told us, “We have a very open relationship with staff and management at Huthnance and so if we have any concerns we feel comfortable talking to the staff and management about whatever it is.”
From discussions with relatives and documents we looked at, we saw that families were included in planning and agreeing to the care provided at the service. People had individual support plans, detailing the support they needed and how they wanted this to be provided. A person told us, “I meet with my key worker and talk about my plan regularly. I have a copy of my support plan and know what it contains.”
Staff demonstrated that they knew the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their support and how they wished to live their lives. For example, staff told us about one person who did not wish to always be closely accompanied by support workers when accessing the local community. Staff were respectful of this and ensured the person had sufficient space to be alone while also maintaining the person’s safety.
We saw evidence that comprehensive quality assurance processes were regularly undertaken to ensure the service were aware of people’s views of the service and could monitor auditing processes at the service. This ensured an open service culture that is open to challenge and learning from issues affecting the quality of the service as they arise.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on information gathered during observations of people who used the service and conversations with relatives, staff and management of Huthnance Park.
Is the service safe?
On the day of the inspection we judged the service to be safe.
We found Huthnance Park to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards . Management demonstrated to us a good understanding of the legal requirements of the legislation.
Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported.
There were robust systems in place to manage the medication of people who used the service and this helped ensure their safety.
Is the service effective?
On the day of the inspection we judged the service to be effective.
Care plans and risk assessments were regularly assessed by staff members. The risk assessments reviewed overall progress, changes in physical health, well-being and behaviour of the person who used the service. The plans identified the risks to the person and how they should be managed and reviewed.
Staff had up to date training and this was focused on the needs of the people living in the home
Is the service caring?
On the day of the inspection we judged the service to be caring.
We observed positive and caring interactions between staff and people who used the service. A relative we spoke with told us: 'They've gone out of their way to give X a good life.'
People's individual needs and preferences were met and staff had a good knowledge of the people they supported.
Is the service responsive?
On the day of the inspection we judged the service to be responsive.
People's care and support needs were assessed and regularly reviewed. Individual preferences, likes and dislikes were recorded.
A satisfactory complaints policy was in place and this was provided in easy read to meet the needs of the people using the service.
Is the service well-led?
On the day of the inspection we judged the service to be well-led.
Staff and families told us management were approachable and listened to any concerns or suggestions and acted upon them.
There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and they were competent and knowledgeable.
We spoke with the managing director who is the Nominated Individual, registered manager and four members of staff about the service. We were told and saw evidence from the care records that people's needs for various reasons could not be met in conventional ways and a different approach was required. One member of staff said that "we consult widely with other professionals to develop a person centred transition".
We made telephone contact with five professional people who all confirmed how impressed they were with the service. One person said "when the flats were designed the provider accepted a lot of advice from us and was receptive to changes that we
recommended".
The manager told us and we evidenced that the service is a paper less and throughout the day we were shown care records, policies and procedures, recruitment and training records which were recorded on the laptop. We were told that the level of permission to gain access to certain levels of information was dependent on staff position in the company.